Re: Charter sci.archaeology


Peter Alaca wrote:

You are not the first noticing that. He doesn't
care about the benefit of the readers, and when
you say something about it you are 'pedantic'
or worse.
Tom McDonald was very to the point when he
wrote:"You see, what you fail to understand is
that it's all about Phil. It's always all about Phil"

I don't know whether there is an ego problem.
What I see are the two cultures of the sciences
and the humanities. People in the sciences have
a tunnel vision. They focus on particular aspects
of a specific problem - and everybody in the field
knows what one is talking about. Not so in the
humanities. Here we have a panorama vision.
Authors must inform their readers where they are
and go to. No pedantry, a simple requirement of
a working communication. Otherwise the readers
are lost. People from the sciences are welcome
in archaeology, the paradigm of a pluri-disciplinary
science. Nevertheless, archaeology is firmly rooted
in the humanities. People from the sciences should
therefore respect our culture. Philip Deitiker should
consider what I say, instead of replying with an
invective - as he did. And which is the reason why
I reply here to you, Peter, and not to him.

Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charter sci.archaeology
    ... What I see are the two cultures of the sciences ... and the humanities. ... Authors must inform their readers where they are ... of the academic specialists. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Charter sci.archaeology
    ... What I see are the two cultures of the sciences ... and the humanities. ... Authors must inform their readers where they are ... of the academic specialists. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Charter sci.archaeology
    ... What I see are the two cultures of the sciences ... and the humanities. ... Authors must inform their readers where they are ... of the academic specialists. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast