Re: Invitation to the new "Flores Man" Yahoo group

From: Doug Weller (dweller_at_ramtops.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:33:11 +0000

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:58:32 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E. Johansson
wrote:

>Doug,
>the below statement of yours show yourself to be deeply limited in who
>according to your views can be or can't be a good scholar. That's not true.
>There are fanatic peoples on both the outher sides of the political scale.
>Apart from that a scholarly behavior calls for the scholar to be able to
>distance him-/herself from his or her own political and personal opinion.
>That's why there is call for so deep methodical studies all way from first
>level in History, and at least here in Sweden in other Philosophic
>Humanistic subjects as well, all way up. One of the most important thing you
>had learnt had you studied here would have been that while you always look
>for bias, hidden or open, dependence to other sources/works etc etc you also
>need to realise that you yourself as a reader are far from objective in your
>own views - no matter where on the political scale you are.
>
>You simply can't say that a scholar of this or that political view never can
>be a good scholar no matter what he or she discuss. By doing so you are as
>good as the one you critizes no matter if the scholar you critizes is on the
>left or the right side of your opinion. Observe that I have excluded
>extremists, those exists on both sides and while some of them can be a good
>scholar in many studies and works up to the point of drawing conclusions
>most of them show themselves directly by the limited questions they asks to
>their material and the limited group of sources they refer to. Same bad
>scholarship can and have also been found by so called scholars who doesn't
>belong to the extremists.
>
>Each scholaristic work needs to be judged by it's own, not due to this or
>that party which the scholar writing it belongs to!

In other words, you have excluded the people I am discussing, and arguing
that I am discussing something different than the meaning conveyed by my
words -- or aren't Nazis and extreme nationalists extremists? My
statement below, no matter what you would like to think, mentions extreme
nationlists and religious fundamentalists. Why you seem to think I am
talking about some other group of people mystifies me.

Doug

>
>
>
>"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>news:3q3do01t4rmft3jb6jst68noaemfufma9i@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:09:25 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E. Johansson
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >you still haven't got it have you? A person's political beliefs has
>nothing
>> >what so ever to do with said person's capability of being a good scholar.
>> >There are good scholars and bad scholars all over the political scale. A
>> >good scholar manage to seperate him-/herself from his/her political
>beliefs
>> >and bad scholar can't. Simple as that.
>> >
>> >One can't use a person's political views as an argument against said
>person
>> >without being same type of person, in other words using ones own
>political
>> >views as criteria of what's good and bad scholarly work. Those who
>doesn't
>> >understand that, they are bad scholars no matter where they stand on the
>> >political scale.
>> >
>> >Inger E who vote Conservative here in Sweden, economic on the right
>social
>> >welfare questions to the left, share some views with the Liberals here to
>> >which party I once belonged.
>>
>> Of course a person's political beliefs can have something to do with their
>> ability to be a good scholar. You can't, for instance, square extreme
>> nationalism with being an objective historian. Or swear to take the Bible
>> literally and being an objective scientist, historian, etc.
>>
>> That you think a Nazi can be objective shows either an extreme naievety or
>> ?
>>
>> You have once again confused Libertarians with Liberals.
>>
>> And none of this has anything to do with my original question, which was a
>> question, not a statement about objectivity etc. In fact, you prejudged
>> me on the basis of my question. :-)
>>
>> Doug
>> --
>> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
>> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>>
> 

-- 
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
 Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Invitation to the new "Flores Man" Yahoo group
    ... > people on the ultra-left wing which are close to your left wing beliefs ... > You assume that a person who you believe to be extreme can't be a good ... Being a good scholar has nothing what so ever to do with your ... > list is run with a person who's views and political beliefs are opposite ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Invitation to the new "Flores Man" Yahoo group
    ... >what so ever to do with said person's capability of being a good scholar. ... Of course a person's political beliefs can have something to do with their ... not a statement about objectivity etc. ... Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct information re. "Academic" definition
    ... formal education in his subject. ... 'Academic scholar' is redundant in normal English unless you ... Doug Weller wrote: ... ...and the resultant incompetence displayed in the language by Douggie ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Invitation to the new "Flores Man" Yahoo group
    ... > That this is an 'invalid syllogism' may have something to do with the ... >>displaying objectivity. ... scholar would ever call himself or herself as 100% objective, ... possible to analyse a biased work. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Silver trade and Silver item from Vinland earlier Re: Determining Geologic Sources of Native Ame
    ... Doug take time to analyse instead of jump right on. ... History no one expect you to be able to analyse texts and works 10 times ... quicker than any scholar of History with full Latin knowledge and knowledge ...
    (sci.archaeology)