(urth) academic commentary

[António Pedro Marques]

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.

> Allow me to explain my reasoning.  On the non-fiction side of things
> (which is where I think Wright's thesis is meant to be) a researcher who
> is unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads is considered a
> poor researcher.  It is akin to intellectual dishonesty.

Not necessarily. Where the evidence leads is always subject to
interpretation. If anything, it would be dishonest to tamper with the
evidence in order that the public wouldn't follow it into disliked
territory. But Wright doesn't do that at all. So my view is that he doesn't
find the obvious, likely superior interpretation that obvious and likely
superior. And not to mention it at all suggests he finds it unhelpful. He 
doesn't close the path either, he just leaves it for the public to follow on 
their own.