======= Date Modified 06 Sep 2008 01:27:54 =======
Quote From Juc:
Is the method of argument considered to be inherently superior to that of analysis? For example, suppose that someone were to translate a previously untranslated scripture and analyse its contents - is this not a proper work of scholarship? Would it not a qualify as a PhD because its author fails to find something to argue about? What need or point is there for argument in such a project? It seems to me that argument is a method which is appropriate in some cases but not in others and so I don't understand why finding something to argue about should be considered essential. :-(
thanx
Translating and analysing is a proper work of scholarship - but I don't think it would count as the standard necessary for a PhD. You seem to equate a PhD with 'argument', but it's not that simple:
For a PhD, you need to a 'distinct contribution to the knowledge of the field' and 'afford evidence of originality' by 'the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power'....
and
'be an integrated whole and present a coherent argument'.
[London University Regulations]
So...argument is essential you also require a 'contribution' and 'originality'. Thus, you could base a hypothesis around the translation and analysis (assuming this is original analysis) i.e, the translation could form part of a body of evidence used to establish a hypothesis related to the scripture subject.