Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 22:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Goldhagen controversy



On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Chris Burford wrote:

> 
> 
> The essence for me is that Andy is continuing to uphold the scholarly
> credibility of Goldhagen when it has been seriously challenged. If Andy
> wishes to continue to do that without addressing the challenge, so be it.
> But it will have comparably less credibility in my eyes. All right, I
> cannot speak for anyone else. But I would have thought from Andy's point of
> view that to continue to uphold Goldhagen without meeting the criticisms
> directly is unproductive use of his time.
> 

There are two ways to judge the scholarly credibility of a person's work.
One is to read the person's work and form one own's (subjective)
impressions and judgement, and stand by them. This is often the refuge of
the dogmatic and betrays the narrow-mind of a frog in a well. That is, no
matter, what ever counter evidence or examples are provided, the fanatic
will stand by his original argument come what may. This was exhibited
recently on this list on the subject matter of dialectical materialism.
To the concrete quotes of Marx in his own words affirming the dialectical
materialist world view, there was something like a contemptuous
dismissal of the proof. And now Goldhagen. 

The second way to judge the credibility of some one else's work is to read
and try to understand what other serious people say about the work. This
is the method used in peer review in scientific journals - a more
objective procedure, a method which is anathema to the fanatic. Empty
long-winded "intellectual" discourses (to which some participants on this
list defer to) with plenty of form and subjectivism and very little
content is one of the last refuges of the academic scoundrel.

Greetings to all non-scoundrels! 

S. Chatterjee (aka VM = Vulgar Materialist)     

				.).).)



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---