Mon, 3 Oct 1994 10:51:04 -0700 for <socgrad@UCSD.EDU>
From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 10:51:01 -0700
To: BLAKE@binah.cc.brandeis.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU
Subject: Re: T.R. Young
I liked Scott Blakes unveiling of the ever-present
relm of "speculation." I find it very funny that I
can read someone like Baudriallaud (sp?) or Roland
Barthes and put their "thoughts" in a paper as a citation,
yet they have merely (but often wonderfully) 
speculated, or at least spoken from a less-than-
scientific point of view. 

In fact (and this addresses a comment on credibility
that questioned the need for PhD etc.) it is 
the credibility of these people that have given
a scholarly venue for their "speculation."

I know this argument can be nit-picked, but
in general I think it is supportable. There seems
to be a "chain of knowledge," that requires
continual citation and reference, but which 
goes back to history's origins (Greek, Asian, etc)
where the knowedge-base was more subjective
in that it hadn't been tested by consensus
(if not so-called scientific
evidence). 

NOW I am getting out of my depth. 

BTW, why haven't people challenged
any of Young's postings for discussion?

Best,

Eric