(urth) academic commentary

[António Pedro Marques]

Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 21:20):
> 2010/12/1 António Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
> <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>
>     Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 02:30):
>
>         2010/11/30 António 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 António 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.