Grieve not, Matt! The fact that former articles are no longer hung around the necks of their authors is an immense boon to scholarship. ’Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

The habit of discussion of concepts and ideas by dredging up an associated big name rather than evincing the concept itself, and engaging with the verifiable evidence that validates it is pointy-headed poltroonery.

Such personalization of scholarly discussion is anathema - and it's particularly nauseating in the intellectually corrupt world of edubabble with its culture of falling over backwards before the pontifications of bedoctorated magnates and conference-hopping panjandrums.

It is the ideas, reasoning and understanding that are supreme, not the bearers of them.

If you have not already done so, everyone should read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the seminal article, ‘Seeing is Believing but Moving isn’t Proving’.

As that article’s final paragraph so succinctly puts it:

In math and science, we don’t cite sources as proof that 2+2=4, or that baking soda and vinegar react.  We demonstrate, we show, we provide visible evidence. Likewise, teaching language from an examination of linguistic evidence trumps whatever street ‘cred’ a famous person or published source — even the OED itself — might have.


So thanks, Matt! By rendering articles authorless you have performed a great service to objective scholarship.

Comments (0)

There are no comments posted here yet