On 2 Nov 2005, at 02:32, Fastfission wrote:
True, but philosophy is a good case in point. I've gotten in discussions on the talk page of philosophers before (i.e. [[Thomas Kuhn]]) where one user seems to have read a completely different text than I did and come to completely different conclusions about it. How to resolve this? Do I reason through Kuhn's argument and come up with my own interpretation? Do I try and create a synthetic argument buffetted by quotations? It's a legitimately difficult thing to do, as anyone who has read some philosophy and discussed it with others would know, especially with a character like Kuhn whose interpretations vary and historically varied quite widely with one another (some saw him as an unabashed relativist, others saw him as a form of Cold War reaffirmation of science, some saw him as painfully unoriginal, etc.). In the end, you hope for a very conservative, "just the facts, ma'am" reading of the text itself, with perhaps a section featuring various prominent interpretations properly attributed to their best-known articulations.
In this case there is plenty of secondary material on interpretations and I would use that if necessary. If you come up with an argument supported by quotes you may just end up being accused of selective quoting.
Justinc