tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post1557905263009715623..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Judging A Book By Its Back MaterialsRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-87542006790579107272007-09-11T18:34:00.000-04:002007-09-11T18:34:00.000-04:00In response to gabriel m.:Research is not a monolo...In response to gabriel m.:<BR/><BR/>Research is not a monologue, but a dialog, a dialog with both the living and the dead who have written or spoken on the subject in question. An author is free, of course, to ignore, or to refuse to engage with, some or all of those who have previously participated in the dialog. But we, too, are free to ignore the contributions of people who refuse to respect past contributions. <BR/><BR/>One consequence of authors refusing to engage with previous contributions is the reinvention of things long known. The economist Ariel Rubinstein, for example, has written a book ("Economics and Language") on argumentation theory which manages to ignore the 2300 or so years of research on the subject of argumentation in philosophy, political theory, jurisprudence and computer science. How should one view an author such as this -- arrogant, lazy or simply ignorant? <BR/><BR/>Whatever one's view of the author's motivations, his contribution is best ignored, for failing to engage with the existing literature: For if he did not bother to position his work in the context of the existing dialog, why should we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-18633722135599025152007-09-11T12:21:00.000-04:002007-09-11T12:21:00.000-04:00JK Galbraith used a modified version of your techn...JK Galbraith used a modified version of your technique, claiming to be able to judge the worth of most books on contemporary politics with a glance at the "G" section of their index.The Rioja Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06462814606739183471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-64757588028247305002007-09-09T15:41:00.000-04:002007-09-09T15:41:00.000-04:00I disagree. Clearly it's scholarly standard to hav...I disagree. <BR/><BR/>Clearly it's scholarly standard to have a section dedicated to previous work on the topic and to end your material with 20-30-40 pages of single-spaced references.<BR/><BR/>Beyond the fact that this sort of requirement leads to uninspired practices such as copy&paste-ing huge blocks of references from other papers, it leads to bloated texts.<BR/><BR/>If the author decides not to engage in any way previous work on the subject, why shouldn't that be fine? He must have his reasons. Why should we have original contributions padded with academic pomp? Think of the trees!Gabriel Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18020403326536585795noreply@blogger.com