Re: theoretically speaking

Matt K. said:
<< [. . .] some of you [are] apparently so committed to being anti-theory
that when presented with a tidy, sensible (I dare say friendly)
argument-summary, you dismiss it. [. . .] There's a difference between
being uninterested in theory and being anti-theory. [. . .] [B]eing
anti-theory as a matter of principle--particularly when coupled with claims
of simple uninterest--is silly. Silly coming from people who have a
demonstrable affection for inquiry and ideas generally. >>

Perhaps I've missed something but it's not clear to me what you mean by
"anti-theory" and I'm not sure who here has indicated being so as a matter
of principle. And I'm currently a bit behind in the posts (I'm working
through my mailbox now), but at least up to where I have read I'm not sure I
agree that tidy and sensible argument-summaries have been dismissed. Some
things have been dismissed, but none that I recall have been so totally
unreasonably, to my estimation at any rate (for instance, arguments whose
conclusions follow necessarily from the leading assertions, but whose
leading assertions are by no means unquestionably established).

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Mar 6 01:42:49 2003