What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists
"Arguably the best work to date in the history of geology."—David R. Oldroyd, Science
"After a superficial first glance, most readers of good will and broad knowledge might dismiss [this book] as being too much about too little. They would be making one of the biggest mistakes in their intellectual lives. . . . [It] could become one of our century's key documents in understanding science and its history."—Stephen Jay Gould, New York Review of Books
"Surely one of the most important studies in the history of science of recent years, and arguably the best work to date in the history of geology."—David R. Oldroyd, Science
"After a superficial first glance, most readers of good will and broad knowledge might dismiss [this book] as being too much about too little. They would be making one of the biggest mistakes in their intellectual lives. . . . [It] could become one of our century's key documents in understanding science and its history."—Stephen Jay Gould, New York Review of Books
"Surely one of the most important studies in the history of science of recent years, and arguably the best work to date in the history of geology."—David R. Oldroyd, Science
528 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
About the author
Martin J.S. Rudwick
10 books11 followersMartin John Spencer Rudwick is a British geologist, historian, and academic. He is an emeritus professor of History at the University of California, San Diego and an affiliated research scholar at Cambridge University's Department of History and Philosophy of Science.
His principal field of study is the history of the earth sciences; his work has been described as the "definitive histories of the pre-Darwinian earth sciences".
Rudwick was awarded the Sue Tyler Friedman Medal in 1988. In 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy (FBA). He was the recipient of the 2007 George Sarton Medal from the History of Science Society.
His principal field of study is the history of the earth sciences; his work has been described as the "definitive histories of the pre-Darwinian earth sciences".
Rudwick was awarded the Sue Tyler Friedman Medal in 1988. In 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy (FBA). He was the recipient of the 2007 George Sarton Medal from the History of Science Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 13, 2025
This book summarizes a small point in the history of geology, when scientist were trying to determine if geologic packages should be grouped by lithology, or by fossil assemblages. With the main problem being a group of rocks in Devon. The book uses letters in personal diary entries to give almost a real time. Account of this 10 year period.
However, I am afraid I had to give the book low stars due to the density of material presented. That is not to say that this is a bad book. In fact, for a historian I am sure this text is vital and insightful, but for a casual read, it should maybe be avoided.
I do find a couple things interesting. The main being that the Devonian controversy and the Devonian period as a hole, was essentially 10 men arguing, debating, and then coming to an agreement with each other. While tons of other ppl were involved, these 10 specialist made the final call. Additionally, the specialist who’s opinion won, essentially just had the most amount of time to do fieldwork and write. He wasn’t restricted by financial, familial, or academic duties. It is an interesting point to consider that in science, the best idea doesn’t necessarily always win out, but the people with the most time to arguing idea will, in fact, win.
Food for thought
However, I am afraid I had to give the book low stars due to the density of material presented. That is not to say that this is a bad book. In fact, for a historian I am sure this text is vital and insightful, but for a casual read, it should maybe be avoided.
I do find a couple things interesting. The main being that the Devonian controversy and the Devonian period as a hole, was essentially 10 men arguing, debating, and then coming to an agreement with each other. While tons of other ppl were involved, these 10 specialist made the final call. Additionally, the specialist who’s opinion won, essentially just had the most amount of time to do fieldwork and write. He wasn’t restricted by financial, familial, or academic duties. It is an interesting point to consider that in science, the best idea doesn’t necessarily always win out, but the people with the most time to arguing idea will, in fact, win.
Food for thought
March 21, 2017
A quite strange book that I enjoyed but you almost certainly will not.
The book is ostensibly about the philosophy and history of science, and the last fifty pages of the book focuses on what we can learn, philosophically, by examining the case of the Devonian controversy. (I didn't really follow this bit. I think the main point was that science doesn't proceed by sudden revolutions and quick paradigm shifts. It has a series of diagrams that grow increasingly awful.)
The first fifty pages gives some background information on the society and geological science of the time, as well as introducing some of the main characters in the controversy. Cool.
The 350 pages in between is completely bonkers. The Great Devonian Controversy turns out to be, at it's heart, the question of whether a coal seam in Devon is older or the same age as a coal seam in other parts of Britain. This takes nine years for the cream of the British geologist crop to figure out, and Rudwick tells you, in freakish detail, what these guys make of it based on their published papers and letters and so forth. And he does it in chronological order, with the narrative broken into couple-few-page sections that cover a couple-few months at a time, or sometimes only one month, with frequent overlapping as we follow different people during the same time periods. It sounds extremely dry--and it is extremely dry--but somehow I found it quite compelling.
I'm not entirely sure why a philosopher of science would read the geology section of this book. I'm not entirely sure why a geologist would read any of it. I'm not entirely sure why I read the whole thing either, but I did, and I liked it alright, but I don't think you will.
The book is ostensibly about the philosophy and history of science, and the last fifty pages of the book focuses on what we can learn, philosophically, by examining the case of the Devonian controversy. (I didn't really follow this bit. I think the main point was that science doesn't proceed by sudden revolutions and quick paradigm shifts. It has a series of diagrams that grow increasingly awful.)
The first fifty pages gives some background information on the society and geological science of the time, as well as introducing some of the main characters in the controversy. Cool.
The 350 pages in between is completely bonkers. The Great Devonian Controversy turns out to be, at it's heart, the question of whether a coal seam in Devon is older or the same age as a coal seam in other parts of Britain. This takes nine years for the cream of the British geologist crop to figure out, and Rudwick tells you, in freakish detail, what these guys make of it based on their published papers and letters and so forth. And he does it in chronological order, with the narrative broken into couple-few-page sections that cover a couple-few months at a time, or sometimes only one month, with frequent overlapping as we follow different people during the same time periods. It sounds extremely dry--and it is extremely dry--but somehow I found it quite compelling.
I'm not entirely sure why a philosopher of science would read the geology section of this book. I'm not entirely sure why a geologist would read any of it. I'm not entirely sure why I read the whole thing either, but I did, and I liked it alright, but I don't think you will.
April 23, 2023
The Great Devonian Controversy is very much about a controversy and much less about the Devonian Period of Earth history. Martin J.S. Rudwick is interested in how the existence of the Devonian system was discovered. As the name implies, the rocks of Devonshire in England were the starting point for the discussion among several scientists that led to the proposal that continues to be accepted today.
The story begins with Henry de la Beche (né Beach), a gentleman geologist doing fieldwork in Devon in the early 1830s. He identified a deposit of coal in the middle of what all geologists agreed was a region dominated by rocks that were much older than the "coal-bearing" or Carboniferous rocks that were commercially valuable elsewhere in England. The older sedimentary rocks were not subdivided into separate systems but were instead referred to as Transition strata or Greywacke (pronounced gray-wacky). They were conceived as transitional between the already well described Secondary strata and the unstratified (igneous and metamorphic) Primary rocks.
De la Beche insisted the Devon coal beds (Culm) were of Greywacke age. Roderick Murchison, another gentleman geologist, begged to differ. He had been working on strata in Wales and was busy establishing the Silurian system of Earth history, based on fossils therein rather than by ascertaining relative age by keeping track of a stratum's historical order by mineralogical means and correlation in geographical space, as de la Beche and most other geologists did in the 1830s.
Murchison with the help of Adam Sedgwick, a geologist who was also a clergyman and professor, found Silurian fossils in Devon and disputed de la Beche's description of the region's structure. Murchison was also fiercely wed to the idea that there were no land plants during "his" Silurian interval and therefore no coal. Where de la Beche thought there was a series of beds dipping to the east, Murchison and Sedgwick found what is now called an syncline, with younger beds exposed at the center (the Culm) and older beds to either side.
Rudwick tells this story in three parts. In the first part he lays out the social setting for these events, describing the social standing of each player and the professional environment in which scientific information was shared and published. The long second section relates in chronological order the events of the controversy between the mid 1830s and the early 1840s, when a consensus was achieved. The final section is an analytic one wherein Rudwick sums up the dynamics of the events he has just described.
In the historical reconstruction Rudwick is careful to present only information that the players would have known at the time. He never cues the reader with any "had they known at the time ..." knowledge. Consequently, if you are geologist who knows this period, you feel a bit like a bystander watching the proverbial blind Brahmins exploring the elephant. If you are not a geologist, I am not sure what you'd make of it. You would have to be very interested in the history and philosophy of science and find fascination in the way these men struggled with cultural prejudices of various stripes versus reason and the weight of evidence. Rudwick has a good story to tell because the latter does indeed win out over the former.
For an academic book it is very clearly written and a non-specialist will not get lost in Rudwick's prose, which is syntactically neat and orderly. But if one is interested in the history of geology, one should read quite a bit about the Devonian itself before reading this book, which is very much about the manner in which it was discovered rather than what it is.
Rudwick seems to have a small ax to grind with Thomas Kuhn's model of scientific revolution and he presents the working through and resolution of the Devonian controversy as a counter-example. His main thesis is that the discovery of the Devonian was a major advancement in geology but it was accomplished without any sort of "revolution" in the field. Rather, the institutions in place functioned as they should have and the people involved used existing analytical tools and ideas to solve the puzzle.
In his first section he describes the marginal position of "scriptural geologists" during the 1830s and '40s. He does so to suggest that too much has been made of the opposition faced by Darwin after 1859 from this quarter. Rudwick also downplays the centrality of the conflict between catastrophists and uniformitarians within geology. His main thesis seems to be that reasonable men have generally made important scientific discoveries without a lot fuss and mess, which is a very British perspective on history.
The story begins with Henry de la Beche (né Beach), a gentleman geologist doing fieldwork in Devon in the early 1830s. He identified a deposit of coal in the middle of what all geologists agreed was a region dominated by rocks that were much older than the "coal-bearing" or Carboniferous rocks that were commercially valuable elsewhere in England. The older sedimentary rocks were not subdivided into separate systems but were instead referred to as Transition strata or Greywacke (pronounced gray-wacky). They were conceived as transitional between the already well described Secondary strata and the unstratified (igneous and metamorphic) Primary rocks.
De la Beche insisted the Devon coal beds (Culm) were of Greywacke age. Roderick Murchison, another gentleman geologist, begged to differ. He had been working on strata in Wales and was busy establishing the Silurian system of Earth history, based on fossils therein rather than by ascertaining relative age by keeping track of a stratum's historical order by mineralogical means and correlation in geographical space, as de la Beche and most other geologists did in the 1830s.
Murchison with the help of Adam Sedgwick, a geologist who was also a clergyman and professor, found Silurian fossils in Devon and disputed de la Beche's description of the region's structure. Murchison was also fiercely wed to the idea that there were no land plants during "his" Silurian interval and therefore no coal. Where de la Beche thought there was a series of beds dipping to the east, Murchison and Sedgwick found what is now called an syncline, with younger beds exposed at the center (the Culm) and older beds to either side.
Rudwick tells this story in three parts. In the first part he lays out the social setting for these events, describing the social standing of each player and the professional environment in which scientific information was shared and published. The long second section relates in chronological order the events of the controversy between the mid 1830s and the early 1840s, when a consensus was achieved. The final section is an analytic one wherein Rudwick sums up the dynamics of the events he has just described.
In the historical reconstruction Rudwick is careful to present only information that the players would have known at the time. He never cues the reader with any "had they known at the time ..." knowledge. Consequently, if you are geologist who knows this period, you feel a bit like a bystander watching the proverbial blind Brahmins exploring the elephant. If you are not a geologist, I am not sure what you'd make of it. You would have to be very interested in the history and philosophy of science and find fascination in the way these men struggled with cultural prejudices of various stripes versus reason and the weight of evidence. Rudwick has a good story to tell because the latter does indeed win out over the former.
For an academic book it is very clearly written and a non-specialist will not get lost in Rudwick's prose, which is syntactically neat and orderly. But if one is interested in the history of geology, one should read quite a bit about the Devonian itself before reading this book, which is very much about the manner in which it was discovered rather than what it is.
Rudwick seems to have a small ax to grind with Thomas Kuhn's model of scientific revolution and he presents the working through and resolution of the Devonian controversy as a counter-example. His main thesis is that the discovery of the Devonian was a major advancement in geology but it was accomplished without any sort of "revolution" in the field. Rather, the institutions in place functioned as they should have and the people involved used existing analytical tools and ideas to solve the puzzle.
In his first section he describes the marginal position of "scriptural geologists" during the 1830s and '40s. He does so to suggest that too much has been made of the opposition faced by Darwin after 1859 from this quarter. Rudwick also downplays the centrality of the conflict between catastrophists and uniformitarians within geology. His main thesis seems to be that reasonable men have generally made important scientific discoveries without a lot fuss and mess, which is a very British perspective on history.
August 31, 2014
A. Summary: The Devonian controversy is forgotten today because the debate was resolved to the satisfaction of all the participants. Historians of science often do not examine resolved issues. But this is the most important area to study to understand how scientific knowledge is shaped. The “Great Devonian Controversy” was a term used by a contemporary and this event is perhaps the most well-documented occurrence in all of history. This book has three aims and is addresses to three different readers:
1. Sociologists of science: This book shows how science is social in character through the intense social interaction among the participants. Rudwick argues that the natural world does have a constraining but not determining role in the outcome.
2. Historians of science: The book deals with an important episode within the history of geology in the 19th century. This was a period in which science was dominated by “Gentlemen” who were as concerned with their own careers and social status as their science.
3. Geologists and natural scientists: The term “Devonian” is a valuable conceptual category in which to describe life on earth. This is the story of how that construct was created.
B. Setting the scene
1. The controversy: The dispute was over the transitional rocks (the Greywacke) that lay below the Carboniferous layers and above the primary rocks. In 1834 Henry De la Beche (a gentleman geologist working for the Ordnance Survey) reported to the Geological Society that he discovered fossil plants in the transitional stratum at Devon (England). Roderick Murchison immediately argued that no plant remains could be located beneath the coal deposits of the Carboniferous layer. For the next 10 years, this debate included geologists throughout the world. These field studies revealed that De la Beche was deceived by the complexity of the strata. The result was the establishment of the Devonian system and a worldwide Devonian period. The transition rocks were identified as a distinct stratum--the Devonian. This conclusion, in the 1840s, ended with all the participants satisfied.
2. The debate over this controversy changed over the years to include the scientific (character of the physical evidence, the quality of observation, and the quality of theoretical interpretations), funding (how this debate would affect government employment for geologists), and institutional (how groups within the Geological Society could influence the societies president whose annual address would indicate the progress over the past year).
3. The successful resolution of the controversy gave geologists a confidence in their methods that they still retain today. Rudwick will apply a “historical microscope” to this case.
C. The plot unfolds (a long monthly narrative chronology of the events--1830s-1847)
1. Rudwick argues that only through tracing this narrative in detail can the controversy be understood. Historiographically he is arguing against social constructionists who place too much emphasis on theoretical constructs to explain scientists behavior.
D. The action analyzed
1. This section explores the implications of this case study for the shaping of scientific knowledge.
2. Rudwick argues that it is difficult to apply Kuhnian terms to this narrative. But, Kuhn’s greatest insight was his emphasis on the social character of scientific tradition. This case study shows that it is the activity of persons, not disembodied ideas that constitute research programs. But, no “revolution” occurred. The resolution of the controversy transformed the geological paradigm without any rupture.
3. While this case study was socially shaped, the result was a new piece of knowledge.
4. While knowledge is socially shaped, it is also shaped by empiriv\cle evidence
1. Sociologists of science: This book shows how science is social in character through the intense social interaction among the participants. Rudwick argues that the natural world does have a constraining but not determining role in the outcome.
2. Historians of science: The book deals with an important episode within the history of geology in the 19th century. This was a period in which science was dominated by “Gentlemen” who were as concerned with their own careers and social status as their science.
3. Geologists and natural scientists: The term “Devonian” is a valuable conceptual category in which to describe life on earth. This is the story of how that construct was created.
B. Setting the scene
1. The controversy: The dispute was over the transitional rocks (the Greywacke) that lay below the Carboniferous layers and above the primary rocks. In 1834 Henry De la Beche (a gentleman geologist working for the Ordnance Survey) reported to the Geological Society that he discovered fossil plants in the transitional stratum at Devon (England). Roderick Murchison immediately argued that no plant remains could be located beneath the coal deposits of the Carboniferous layer. For the next 10 years, this debate included geologists throughout the world. These field studies revealed that De la Beche was deceived by the complexity of the strata. The result was the establishment of the Devonian system and a worldwide Devonian period. The transition rocks were identified as a distinct stratum--the Devonian. This conclusion, in the 1840s, ended with all the participants satisfied.
2. The debate over this controversy changed over the years to include the scientific (character of the physical evidence, the quality of observation, and the quality of theoretical interpretations), funding (how this debate would affect government employment for geologists), and institutional (how groups within the Geological Society could influence the societies president whose annual address would indicate the progress over the past year).
3. The successful resolution of the controversy gave geologists a confidence in their methods that they still retain today. Rudwick will apply a “historical microscope” to this case.
C. The plot unfolds (a long monthly narrative chronology of the events--1830s-1847)
1. Rudwick argues that only through tracing this narrative in detail can the controversy be understood. Historiographically he is arguing against social constructionists who place too much emphasis on theoretical constructs to explain scientists behavior.
D. The action analyzed
1. This section explores the implications of this case study for the shaping of scientific knowledge.
2. Rudwick argues that it is difficult to apply Kuhnian terms to this narrative. But, Kuhn’s greatest insight was his emphasis on the social character of scientific tradition. This case study shows that it is the activity of persons, not disembodied ideas that constitute research programs. But, no “revolution” occurred. The resolution of the controversy transformed the geological paradigm without any rupture.
3. While this case study was socially shaped, the result was a new piece of knowledge.
4. While knowledge is socially shaped, it is also shaped by empiriv\cle evidence
October 26, 2018
This is a fascinating book addressing issues of both the history of geology and the generation of scientific knowledge. Rudwick follows, in great detail, the conflict between eminent gentleman English geologists who played an integral role in mapping out Earth's history leading to the eventual proposal of the Devonian system in 1839. This was a major chapter in the history of geology from the period of approximately 1820 through 1850 during which the relative geologic time scale, as we currently know it, was developed.
The book is laid out in three major sections. Rudwick uses his first few chapter to set the stage with a concise summary of the extant knowledge and interpretation of earth history as it was understood in the first few years of the 1830s along with brief introductions to the major players.
The second section constitutes the bulk of the book. Rudwick takes great advantage of the copious correspondence that took place among the leading geologists from that time. He follows the development of the controversy on a virtually month-to-month basis from late 1834, when the conflict began, through its consensual resolution in the early 1840s. He tracks the manner in which the views of the primary players evolved in response to both new information and the arguments of their opponents. Rudwick sheds a great deal of light on the true nature of science and its progress through this process.
Rudwick summarizes the historical progress of the controversy with visual maps and discussion in the final section, and provides an analysis of the controversy and its resolution. He shines a great light on the processes of science through his analysis. A major contribution to our understanding of science emerges, mirroring the Devonian controversy itself, by illustrating that scientific knowledge, while it arises through a social process, reflects, nonetheless, the real world to which it applies. He shows that neither a strict realist interpretation of science (i.e., that science progresses by the "discovery" of new concepts) nor a strict sociological interpretation of science (i.e., that science progresses merely by the "construction" of scientific knowledge through the social process of argumentation among competitors) are adequate to understand the true nature of scientific understanding. As in the resolution of the Devonian conflict itself, aspects of both sides are essential to a more complete understanding.
The book is laid out in three major sections. Rudwick uses his first few chapter to set the stage with a concise summary of the extant knowledge and interpretation of earth history as it was understood in the first few years of the 1830s along with brief introductions to the major players.
The second section constitutes the bulk of the book. Rudwick takes great advantage of the copious correspondence that took place among the leading geologists from that time. He follows the development of the controversy on a virtually month-to-month basis from late 1834, when the conflict began, through its consensual resolution in the early 1840s. He tracks the manner in which the views of the primary players evolved in response to both new information and the arguments of their opponents. Rudwick sheds a great deal of light on the true nature of science and its progress through this process.
Rudwick summarizes the historical progress of the controversy with visual maps and discussion in the final section, and provides an analysis of the controversy and its resolution. He shines a great light on the processes of science through his analysis. A major contribution to our understanding of science emerges, mirroring the Devonian controversy itself, by illustrating that scientific knowledge, while it arises through a social process, reflects, nonetheless, the real world to which it applies. He shows that neither a strict realist interpretation of science (i.e., that science progresses by the "discovery" of new concepts) nor a strict sociological interpretation of science (i.e., that science progresses merely by the "construction" of scientific knowledge through the social process of argumentation among competitors) are adequate to understand the true nature of scientific understanding. As in the resolution of the Devonian conflict itself, aspects of both sides are essential to a more complete understanding.
August 22, 2014
Three or four stars for most people but a solid five stars for two sorts of persons:
(1) Any geologist or scientist in a related field, or more importantly
(2) Any reader among the 95% of us who thinks that science is a collection of facts
But not one per cent of one per cent of group 2 will touch this, because it's about (OMG): "science, a collection of facts".
"The Great Devonian Controversy" relates the discovery of and scientific controversies surrounding the identification of the Devonian period and geologic system. It happened primarily in England from about 1834 to 1843. The Devonian period lasted from about 420 to 360 million years ago, when fish first appeared and plants began colonizing the land.
The geologists fell into three camps: gentlemen geologists whose wealth enabled them to do geology full-time as they pleased, poorer geologists working for the government primarily to locate coal deposits more cheaply but pursuing more general geology along the way, and local amateurs who knew just what was valuable in their regions and exactly where to find it. The Devonian and other periods and systems that they identified as meaningful are still in use.
As for general results, they confirmed the suspicion that geological systems are uniquely identifiable and are correlated among continents. And they demonstrated that fossil evidence is more reliable than rock type for correlating strata, consequent to their realization (with paleontologists' help) that fossils tend to be unique in any system although layers of the same age may differ in rock type in different regions.
The rationale for 494 pages on this short period is to show how science works up close. Everyone should know this.
The "Controversy" of the title reflects some of the relations among the geologists, who interact in part in gentlemanly discussion and in part with hammer and tongs (figuratively speaking). It is an example of the usual style of constructive dialectic essential to scientific inquiry.
Two particular aspects of the controversy are worth mentioning as comprising a general scientific style. One is the considerably contingent quality of the various revelations. Another is the non-Kuhnian style of the synthesis, unless seen at a distance darkly. Kunhian paradigm shifts seem to reduce in proportion as historical magnification increases.
By the way, the Devonian system is present but is poorly characterized around Devon: another contingency.
The book is well researched, documented and written, even if it has more geological and other detail than the layman may want. The author sums up and then summarizes the summary, yikes. Then he considers various general viewpoints, including the philosophical (like realist vs. constructivist) and rhetorical. The thinking is clear and commendable.
(1) Any geologist or scientist in a related field, or more importantly
(2) Any reader among the 95% of us who thinks that science is a collection of facts
But not one per cent of one per cent of group 2 will touch this, because it's about (OMG): "science, a collection of facts".
"The Great Devonian Controversy" relates the discovery of and scientific controversies surrounding the identification of the Devonian period and geologic system. It happened primarily in England from about 1834 to 1843. The Devonian period lasted from about 420 to 360 million years ago, when fish first appeared and plants began colonizing the land.
The geologists fell into three camps: gentlemen geologists whose wealth enabled them to do geology full-time as they pleased, poorer geologists working for the government primarily to locate coal deposits more cheaply but pursuing more general geology along the way, and local amateurs who knew just what was valuable in their regions and exactly where to find it. The Devonian and other periods and systems that they identified as meaningful are still in use.
As for general results, they confirmed the suspicion that geological systems are uniquely identifiable and are correlated among continents. And they demonstrated that fossil evidence is more reliable than rock type for correlating strata, consequent to their realization (with paleontologists' help) that fossils tend to be unique in any system although layers of the same age may differ in rock type in different regions.
The rationale for 494 pages on this short period is to show how science works up close. Everyone should know this.
The "Controversy" of the title reflects some of the relations among the geologists, who interact in part in gentlemanly discussion and in part with hammer and tongs (figuratively speaking). It is an example of the usual style of constructive dialectic essential to scientific inquiry.
Two particular aspects of the controversy are worth mentioning as comprising a general scientific style. One is the considerably contingent quality of the various revelations. Another is the non-Kuhnian style of the synthesis, unless seen at a distance darkly. Kunhian paradigm shifts seem to reduce in proportion as historical magnification increases.
By the way, the Devonian system is present but is poorly characterized around Devon: another contingency.
The book is well researched, documented and written, even if it has more geological and other detail than the layman may want. The author sums up and then summarizes the summary, yikes. Then he considers various general viewpoints, including the philosophical (like realist vs. constructivist) and rhetorical. The thinking is clear and commendable.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews