Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Mahratt,
... the minute you put your thoughts on paper and publish them, they become a part of the public domain and are opened to discussion and criticism. ...
This is how the game of academic publishing is played. ...
|
Ariel has observed correctly that the academic world sometimes can be a tough arena in which to express oneself, and that objective criticism of an academic paper can be blunt at times.
There are some folks here who adopt a strict academic approach in discussing ethnographic edged weapons, and wish to see all opinions justified logically and supported by facts. Other members do not participate in discussions at that level, but rather they prefer to speculate in a less formal manner about how things might be. Personally, I think there is a place for both approaches. Informal, free wheeling discussions freed from the constraints of rigorous proof or supporting data are fun to engage in and sometimes produce some interesting ideas (hypotheses) that can then be looked at more critically.
The different views between those who are looking for an "informal chat" and those who want to engage in a more "rigorous discussion" sometimes has led to problems in our discussions. I would venture to say that most members who contribute to these forums are not from an academic background and do not necessarily wish to engage in "rigorous discussions," but would prefer to engage in a more informal manner. Others who want a more rigorous approach will take exception to a lack of evidence in such ideas. Strong disagreements and tensions may develop. That's one of the reasons why these forums have moderators--to intercede when interpersonal exchanges get overly heated.
When an article is published in a reputable journal (as is the case here) it is an academic paper that has hopefully passed through peer review and is open to rigorous analysis by those who read it. By bringing such a paper to our attention, the author invites Forum members to view it as a serious academic contribution to the field and to subject it to careful scrutiny.
Serious academic contributions, such as the paper mahratt has brought before us, are important information to our field and deserve our careful consideration. Respectful "rigorous discussion" by critics is actually the ultimate compliment to be paid to the author of such an article, and that is what Ariel has offered. Of course, distinguished academic researchers in unrelated fields can be wrong in their opinions about ethnographic weapons, but Ariel is engaging the author in an objective manner that asks for objective responses.
The present discussion of a peer reviewed paper illustrates when a more rigorous discussion is not only appropriate but seems the correct way to approach the information it contains.
Ian.