site
Please accept the following comments in the spirit of collegiality that is intended. As one who has spent his life in the academic world, I do think that it is a mistake to omit those who have been part of the history of research before your distinguished offerings. I recognize that effort has been made in this direction but needs further work. As you well know, I'm sure, there is a never a blank slate in pure scholarship---the highest accomplishments never arise in vacuo--- so that acknowledging those who have been important to the debate(even those with whom you may have disagreed or parted ways with for critical reasons) is a must. This should always be done as assiduously and comprehensively as possible to match the breadth and depth of what you're now offering as a scholarly contribution.
I used the word 'erudition' to describe your work in an earlier post because I
believe it is scholarly and academic. I do think the omission of key contributors in the history of research, as explicated above, should be revisited and further elucidated.
Again, I do appreciate your erudite gifts to the the field of T206 scholarship
and hope that my discussion is helpful.
all the best,
Barry
Last edited by ethicsprof; 12-22-2011 at 08:27 PM.
|
12-22-2011, 10:25 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode