A response to Mohammed. Certainly, it cannot be a vice to advocate  
realism, unless you are a surrealist. But I'm not entirely sure that  
this is what you have in mind. To focus on errors means that you would  
like to deal with statements from the point of view that some standard  
of evaluation is possible and that you know what it is. This not  
necessarily the same as realism, unless it is reasonable to assume that  
everyone faces the same reality and conceives of it in the same way. Right? 
I can make an observation, though, on why we don't see more history of  
thought that tries to make the case that a particular standard /ought/  
to be adopted. This kind of history of thought requires more work. Not  
only for the historian but also for the reviewer of the work of the  
historian. I personally have tried to publish quite a bit of this kind  
of work. Two typical journal responses are: (1)  "I don't think there is  
enough interest among our readers in this subject." And (2) "Let me  
suggest that you try to publish this in a journal that is more  
specialized in dealing with the standard of evaluation you are  
recommending." Editors today are seldom intellectual leaders in their  
profession. They function more like managers of clearinghouses, it seems  
to me. 
 
Then, of course, there are the hostile responses from reviewers who feel  
either that no standard exists or should exist and from those who  
advocate some other standard. These typically don't have the patience to  
allow their ideas to be challenged. Opportunity costs of time are too high. 
I can see that this is beginning to sound too much like a blog. Anybody  
else have ideas on this? 
  
 
Pat Gunning