NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/csgl/1986

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 1.9 KB | 39 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!LYNX.DAC.NORTHEASTERN.EDU!EPRINCE
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:43:03 EST
Sender:       "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <[e-mail]>
From:         Eileen Prince <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Misc. blah
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "William T. Powers" at Dec 24, 92 9:16 am
Lines: 25

Bill's recent posting on defending theories reminded me of an incident
that took place when I was a doctoral level grad student at Harvard (in
linguistics, still ABD).  My area of specialization was/is discourse
analysis, and I had written a paper, I believe on article use, though
I'm not positive at this time (how soon we forget when removed from the
context!).  In the paper, I had made the claim that my theory accounted
for most of the data but that there were certain data which it did not
adequately describe.  I then gave examples of that data.  My adviser,
who I still respect in many ways, chuckled.  He told me to take out that
part and to never admit in a paper or publication that a theory of mine
did not work completely.  He said that if I felt compelled I could
mention the deviant (recalcitrant?) data in a footnote, but that even
that was not necessary.  He said to wait till others pointed out what
the theory did not account for and then to respond.

This was "only" linguistics, love it though I do.  If this type of stuff
goes on in the hard sciences, ....  Speaking of which, I think that
Richard Feynman tried to debunk the system, but he of course had already
made his reputation.  Remember the rings on the rocket or something like
that?

Best again,


Eileen