From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 09:02:11 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote,
> It would seem appropriate to debate the assertions made in the
> article, rather than instantly dig into what you think the author's
> personal agenda is, or what that of the group that he works for is.
> Such investigations should be secondary, and later, IMO. Surely you
> agree that what someone says should not be dismissed just because
> the person also happens to be religious?
???
I did not bring in any additional information not referenced in the original
document you posted. What I did was follow standard, scientific critiquing
methods for peer-review of any scholarly publication.
- I read the article
- I visited their site as the article suggested
- I read their supporting documentation as the article suggested
- I followed the url links the article presented
- I double-checked the source references given in the article
- I reviewed the methodology used for their historical "reinterpretation"
This is standard for a scientific or scholarly review. Did you want me to
read the article without reading their support documents? Accept their
interpretations without reading the originals? Accept their findings
without reviewing their methodology? Debate the conclusions without
questioning the "facts"? As an author, consultant, researcher and
scientist, this scholarly or scientific review is the only one I know how to
do. On what other basis should I form an evaluation of this article?
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:38 MST