A simple question for all:
Suppose that there are two theories that purport to explain
Subject 'C'.
Theory A developed by 'Y' predates Theory B developed by
'Z'.
Z's Theory B was 'inspired' by Y's Theory A.
There are (at least) 2 questions that have been raised:
1) what exactly was Y's Theory A?
This has been discussed by advocates of both A
and B.
2) is Theory B 'better than' Theory A or vice versa?
Those who argue that Theory B is _different from_
Theory A (a point that many advocates of Theory
B openly acknowledge) have occasionally stated
that Theory B "MAY BE BETTER" than Theory
A but that is not their main concern which is 1)
above.
Is it more important to understand C (the subject
matter) or Y's Theory A (which 'inspired' Z's Theory
B)?
*Which is the more important question: 1) or 2)?*
Unless one thinks that a history of thought
question is more important than comprehending the
subject matter itself (C), isn't 2) necessarily the
primary and most important question?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST