----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I suppose I should not add anything further here as I have not read Geertz, Ryle,
Weintraub's comment, or even Colander's later commentary on "thick" versus "thin."
However, I was one of those using this terminology earlier on this list.
 
I picked it up from what I thought Roy Weintraub meant in discussing the Duke HE program,
from which it appeared at least partly to have to do with research methodology, that
"thick" studies were those acceptable to a historian of science, studies involving finding
original material or facts or local contexts in time about an important figure, with
interviews or discovering new writings or archival materials about the person's life as
being the main tools acceptable in such an approach.  I suppose in Colander's version,
this would be focusing on a single very large or old (or important) tree in the forest and
finding out new things about its bark, its root and branch and leaf structure, the animals
that live in or near it, or other details about its immediately surrounding environment.
Again, I could be completely off base here.
 
I am not sure if I am interpreting this the same as Dave Colander, but by "thin" histories
I thought what was meant, in contrast with the view noted above, was an approach that
looked at the historical development of an idea as it was developed through a series of
authors/thinkers.  This might involve (hopefully) pointing out some lost thinker of
importance who got dropped or ignored by the wayside, but with a major emphasis on the
ideas themselves and how their current status developed, with perhaps even pointing out
useful aspects that got either forgotten or deliberately dropped along the way that would
be worth reviving.  In Roy's terms this may amount to "literature review with a longer
time horizon," but obviously I see it as somewhat more than that, and in that regard am
willing to back Dave in his position, if I have not completely misinterpreted both him and
Roy, not to mention others involved in this discussion.  In terms of the tree/forest
analogy, I suppose I would view "good thin" HE as involving pointing out certain regions
of the forest that have been lost or abandoned, but which are really very interesting and
should be explored or even used more now.
 
Again, as I stated earlier, I see a role for both of these kinds of approaches. Also, I am
not sure what the "internalist" approach is, as brought up by Kevin Hoover.  If what I
have described above looks more like that, fine, but if not, I apologize for not
describing it and perhaps leaving it out of my earlier categorization (which included
"hermeneutic re-haruspications," which I think some did not like).
 
I also apologize if more generally I have mischaracterized 
anybody's views or position in this matter, which is quite possible. 
 
Barkley Rosser 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]