academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 01 Dec 2010, 21:47 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:47:24 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net>
	<4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net>
	<4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF69C94.8020602 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimqS94dUTMk=nPNoM76vU8NmV027z_PH0FZAwzi at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6C26C.4070602 at gmail.com>

Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 21:20):
> 2010/12/1 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
> <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>
>     Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 02:30):
>
>         2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>>
>
>             Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 18:55):
>
>                 2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>>>
>
>
>
>                     Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 02:22):
>
>                         Another way of looking at it.  The question is
>         "How did
>                 Wright
>                         miss/not
>                         include an obvious (and likely superior)
>         interpretation
>                 that any
>                         careful
>                           reader would read?".  The answer is "Because
>         it made
>                 him feel
>                         uncomfortable".  This looks like a clear case of
>         arguing
>                 against the
>                         author rather than the thesis.
>
>                     But is it more complimenting to answer "Because it's
>         above his
>                     league?"? I
>                     certainly don't think that's the case.
>
>                 That is a false dichotomy.  There are other ways to
>         answer which
>                 do not
>                 involve speculation on Wright's personal properties.  I
>         would even
>                 suggest that the question itself is not
>         helpful/applicable to
>                 understanding a non-fiction thesis.
>
>             At the end of the day the fact remains that Wright left a
>         certain
>             path unexplored and that demands an explanation. And that is
>             lacking. It should have been made explicit from the onset.
>
>         Wright's thesis stands or falls on its internal logic and ability to
>         shed light on the material.  It is not dependent on what he
>         didn't do
>         except in so far as a different theory might be better, and that
>         is a
>         separate argument.  It certainly doesn't depend upon any imagined
>         reasons for why he did/didn't come to different conclusions.
>
>
>     I don't think this is getting anywhere.
>
>
> I agree, and will be brief.

(Could you set up your system so that it prepends quotes with > rather than 
what it is that it's using?)

>     The issue here is that there is a dimension to the work that Wright
>     hasn't explored in his generally-applicable scheme. That simply and
>     definitely demands an explanation.
>
> And I say it doesn't.

I disagree.

>     Maybe I should have said 'methodologically
>     uncomfortable/inconvenient' and we wouldn't be having this
>     conversation (though going by what you say there's no difference).
>
> That is almost exactly the difference (...)

Then I apologise for not making it clear in the original.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net