[Sca-Cooks] Pasties article in the new T.I.

[Terry Decker]

Twenty-one years is plenty of time for a scholarly idea to change 
completely.  Some sources may be in error or poorly interpreted (as in the 
case of the Victorian authors).  New sources are found, new ideas come to 
the fore and "facts" often change in the light of new evidence.  If false or 
misleading information is left unchallenged, then people will continue to 
represent fallacy as truth.

If there is truly conflicting evidence or facts, then what better way to 
create a reasonable interpretation than to have an open debate.

Everyone knows "facts" that aren't, holds some fallacious views of reality, 
and interprets some things incorrectly.  The scholarly goal should be to 
take new evidence and ideas and use them to assess one's assumptions and 
knowledge to synthesize a better view of reality.  If your work can help 
further the process, then by all means publish it.  You are not being 
destructive or disrespectful of of another's work to do so.  You are 
establishing your view of a subject based on the evidence you have 
collected.

Bear


> Do others out there think this is a good idea? I have a subject that I
> have been working on, and  have avoided submitting anything to TI
> because what I have dug up is contradictory to a previously published
> article.
>
> I in no way want to upset or offend the previous writer, I am sure
> that they did the best with the sources they had when they wrote their
> article (1986). But still, I am not here to dubunk or dismiss someone
> else's effort. It just so happens an area I found interesting was
> already covered by TI.
>
> I am interested what people think about this.
>
> Glad Tidings,
> Serena da Riva