etc.

[Tom Givon]

I thought maybe a PS would be worth pursuing. I think Paul Hopper was 
absolutely right in pointing out, if that is what he intended to do, 
that none of us are blameless. But of course, the point was 
even-more-eloquently made long ago by that inspired man who caution us 
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I would hope however, 
that in the tricky balance academics try to maintain between casting 
stones (power) and telling the 'truth' as they see it (science), we all 
strive as hard as we can to reduce the proportion of the former and 
enhance that of the latter. As fallible humans, that is really all we 
can do.

The main thrust of my earlier note, leastwise as I understood it (tho of 
course hunting for hidden meanings is always possible), was that 
publications in science should not concentrate so much on being the Gate 
Keepers & Guardians of the True Faith, but rather should strive more 
toward disseminating new information and, God forbid, on occasion, new 
ideas. In particular, our young generation ought to be encouraged and 
cherished, not because they necessarily bear the ultimate truth, 
whatever that mythological beast may be, but because they might some 
day, when we are long gone, continue what we have been trying to do, and 
hopefully even improve upon it. This is where I think the much-maligned 
'un-refereed' volumes have served, in my experience, an important tho 
admittedly 'permissive' function.

To give a more updated example--I recently co-edited a volume that 
grouped together contributions from many eminent senior scholars, all of 
them pre-selected and none refereed (except by their peers around the 
table). But the two papers in the collection that, in my frail 
judgement, were by far the shiningest best in terms of both theory and 
methodology, were the joint contributions  of the two lone grad students 
(now PhDs). I am sure they could have sent those papers to a journal, 
gotten feedback, and got them published. But I elected to publish them 
as submitted, no editorial interference. Not because I couldn't see 
places where the presentation could have been improved. But because I 
wanted the two young authors to have their say as THEY saw fit.

Cheers,  TG