Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00135)

     The recent discussion between Daniel Caldwell and Paul
Johnson has caught my attention.  I haven't had time to read
Paul's latest book, so on this subject, I have no comments.  But
there is a broader and (I think) more important issue here that I
feel needs to be pointed out.  I am thinking of the issue of good
and bad scholarship.  If one is a professional librarian (as both
Paul and Daniel are), then one will hopefully have special
training in the scholarly skill of seeking out and locating
obscure information.  Further, a librarian has the good fortune
of having first hand access to electronic data bases in order to
locate and obtain otherwise hard to find material.  Library
skills doesn't make a scholar, but they sure help in finding
material.  Yet, even those researchers who are not librarians
(such as myself) can still have the same access to materials
through the inter-library loan services.  In the case of obscure
Theosophical material, sometimes a little dective work is
required to track it down, but it is always somewhere--and almost
always in more than one place.  In light of the above, I find
Paul's statement curious that "Some of my lack of information is
due to the hostility of those who possess it."  Like Paul, my own
outspoken philosophy of saying exactly what I think has closed
the doors to some sources.  For instance, like Paul, it is
unlikely that I would ever be given access to Olcott's Diaries at
Adyar.  But, unlike Paul, I didn't have to go to India to figure
that out.  Yet in spite of the alleged "hostility" I have never
failed to find a copy of any theosophical document that I have
set out to look for--regardless of its rarity.  Therefore, even
if Paul is correct that "`Good' Theosophists have a much easier
time of getting access to such material" that doesn't mean that
"bad" theosophists are out of luck.  Being able to locate and
access needed material is one of the things a researcher learns
to do.
     Alan Bain has correctly pointed out that a researcher can
never be certain to have found all possible source material upon
a given subject.  On the other hand, a responsible researcher
will have made a thorough search of secondary material to see
what has already been covered on the subject and to "ferret" out
possible sources of primary material to investigate.  The
subsequent investigation of the primary material may reveal
further primary material.  Though a researcher may miss a piece
of evidence here and there, a conscientiously and systematically
researched work will be balanced and fairly represent the source
material that gives evidence on each side of the argument.  Even
if *every* piece of evidence has not been found (as long as the
material used is fairly representative), and the researcher has
made allowances (such as refraining from drawing conclusions) for
the missing material a balanced and good piece of research can
still be done.
     The researcher, however, only represents half of the
problem.  The other half involves the reader.  When we read
"researched" works on subject that we are not deeply familiar, it
is easy to be fooled into thinking that a work is better research
than it actually is.  For instance, Over the last six months or
so, I have been plowing through scores of "scholarly" articles
and books concerning the connections between some modernist
literary figures and the occult.  Almost all of the articles and
books were published by major University presses and authored by
some of the top authorities in their specialties.  Yet, when the
discussion turns to Theosophy, I am finding at least one error of
fact in almost every paragraph.  It just goes to show that
"scholarship" is not necessarily what it is cracked up to be.
So, I think the reader has to be aware and read critically even
those works that purport to be scholarly.  Even if the material
is unfamiliar, there are a few questions one might ask to help
ascertain whether a work is scholarly:

1. Is the presentation balanced?  Does the author present the
evidence both pro and con?  Does the author demonstrate the
complexity of the issue?

2. Are the author's statements backed up by references?  For
instance, if a historical event is related, does the author draw
from more than a single source?  Are those sources primary ones?
(Primary sources are the source documents e.g. first hand
accounts, and original letters.  Other books on the subject are
not source documents.  For instance, Sylvia Cranston's
Bibliography is a secondary source.  But most of the sources that
Cranston used to write the book are primary).

3. Is the author examining the evidence and allowing that
evidence to lead her to the logical conclusions?  Or does the
author seem to be organizing the evidence to fit a preconceived
conclusion?  Often it is difficult to determine this, but
sometimes it is pretty obvious.

4. Is the author careful not to force uncalled for conclusions
from the evidence.  An example that come to mind on this is an
anthropological work published a few years ago by a U.C.L.A.
graduate.  In the beginning of her book, she cites the existence
of prehistoric carvings of female figures.  She state at the
beginning of the book that these figures could *possibly* be
goddess figures.  By the middle of the book, she states that
these figures are *probably* goddess figures.  By the end of the
book, she states that these figures *are* goddess figures.  Yet
she never offers a shred of direct evidence through the whole
book to support the conclusion she came to at the end. Another
recent example concerns a presentation I recently gave.  During
the discussion period, a questioner informed me that everything
H.P.B. knew about Kabbalah came from Issac Meyer.  His only
evidence for this astounding statement was that H.P.B. discusses
Meyer in the *S.D.*  Obviously this is a rather weak premise.  I
met Manly Hall on several occasions, and have read some of his
books, but that doesn't mean that I know what he knows, or that I
necessarily owe my understanding of one subject or another to
him.
     If the reader also has expertise in the same area, then she
may be in a position to make an assessment of how well the source
material is utilized.  Are there any obvious source documents
that have been ignored?  Has all of the evidence been considered?
If not, then why not?  Not taking evidence into consideration
(even when it is not available) can seriously weaken the
soundness of any research.
     I feel that it is of vital importance that as readers we
strive to hone our critical skills.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins