These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] concepts

Sure, Peter. I am trying to challenge people in the spirit of friendly scholarly exchange. Ideas *are *generally very robust when defended by those who really understand them, but they can also be repeated uncritically. If we want to get a better understanding of "concept" than can be described as "old language" by Jay, then I do believe we have to tighten up our ideas. 

Andy
Peter Smagorinsky wrote:

... I worry about the reduction and caricaturization of ideas, Andy, in some of your recent critiques. You can justify a theory of activity without distorting other views of psychology to make them appear less robust than their practitioners posit them.



__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca