tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post112166636143996307..comments2024-03-28T11:03:41.050-05:00Comments on Unlocked Wordhoard: DeLong on TheoryDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1135445879760956902005-12-24T11:37:00.000-06:002005-12-24T11:37:00.000-06:00There are different opinions on this subject.There are different opinions on this subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1121720061770832432005-07-18T15:54:00.000-05:002005-07-18T15:54:00.000-05:00You'll notice that my evaluation was stated almost...You'll notice that my evaluation was stated almost entirely in the negative "haven't joined," "not be worthwhile" and "don't regret." I always lay into my students in their papers for saying what something ISN'T rather than what it IS, but in this case I did so purposefully.<BR/><BR/>My complaint is about something the Valve can do little to police: the lame theory-talk rhetoric that obfuscates rather than reveals.<BR/><BR/>I guess I am disappointed in theory-talk generally, and the Valve's discussion is an inevitable manifestation of that. I think theory is not just important, but essential -- yet the anti-theory crowd is completely justified in their claims that what passes as theory-talk has served little useful function, and has probably done more harm than good. In other words, theory-talk seems to me to be the academic version of "Chick Tracts" -- betraying the very principles it supposedly serves by offensive bullying.<BR/><BR/>So, my complaint isn't at all about the Valve (which I generally like) -- it's about the level of discourse surrounding theory.<BR/><BR/>Makes me think I should write up a long post about the theorist Pierre Mourier. I don't have time today, but if you see a post on this site about Mourier, you'd probably be interested in it.Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.com