On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:56:07AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote: > An article that heavily relies on Searle to summarize Derrida would be a > disaster. And yet the best ways to counterbalance Searle involve primary > sources.
I see what you are saying. I have the same issue with mathematics research papers, if they are considered "primary sources". My personal solution, which allows me to reconcile NOR with actual practice, is that Derrida's essay in response to Searle is not a "primary source" from the point of view of NOR. According to NOR, primary sources are: "Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Note that "peer-reviewed papers making analytic or synthetic arguments" are not included in that list. If "primary source" for NOR actually included Derrida's response to Searle, but not Searle's argument, then the problem you see would be genuine. However, if Derrida's argument is considered a primary source, then Searle's should also be considered a primary source. Unfortunately, due to the wide range of things that are considered "primary sources" by different fields, I don't think there is really much hope for a clear PSTS section in the NOR policy. Recently I have just been ignoring it. If you make any progress in clearing up the language on the NOR page, that would be wonderful. - Carl _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
