(urth) academic commentary

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net> wrote:

> 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 have a dog in this race, I haven't read Wright, but speaking
in terms of general theory -- if there are important facts (internal
to the text or _maybe_ about the author) that a theory does not take
into account, then that theory is deeply flawed. IMO.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes