{"title":"Medice, cura te ipsum. W odpowiedzi Andrzejowi Zakrzewskiemu","authors":"P. Pilarczyk","doi":"10.4467/20844131ks.22.012.15278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medice, cura te ipsum. A response to Andrzej Zakrzewski\n\nAndrzej Zakrzewski’s article reviews the book The judiciary adopted by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in fiscal cases (1765–1794) by Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk. The article was published in Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 14, issue 4 (2021). It is an unpleasant example of academic misconduct. Due to the doubts it raises, it is necessary to indicate the abuses committed by the reviewer.\n\nAmong Zakrzewski’s numerous remarks, his charge of insufficient use of the literature available on the subject stands out. However, the majority of issues raised by the reviewer either do not relate to things found in the book, or the references found there are irrelevant. The next objection relates to the language used in the work. The reviewer’s arguments result from misunderstanding of the assumptions elucidated in the work.\n\nPolemics with the reviewer are in many cases impossible, because they often fail to justify criticisms with substantiable arguments, or they lack rational bases because of being ad personam. Criticism also applies to what is not in the book, because the reviewer does not focus on the content of the work, but refers to other topics that he would like to read about. Bearing all this in mind, one cannot consider Zakrzewski’s text be substantive and conforming to reasonable standards of academic criticism.","PeriodicalId":346009,"journal":{"name":"Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/20844131ks.22.012.15278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
“医生,”他说。andrezej Zakrzewski的文章回顾了Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk的著作《立陶宛大公国财政委员会在财政案件中采用的司法制度》(1765-1794)。这篇文章发表在克拉科夫斯基历史研究Państwa Prawa 14第4期(2021年)。这是学术不端行为的一个令人不快的例子。由于它引起的怀疑,有必要指出审稿人所犯的滥用。在扎热夫斯基的众多评论中,他对未充分利用有关该主题的现有文献的指责最为突出。然而,审稿人提出的大多数问题要么与书中发现的内容无关,要么与书中发现的参考文献无关。下一个反对意见与作品中使用的语言有关。审稿人的论点是由于误解了工作中阐明的假设。与审稿人争论在很多情况下是不可能的,因为他们经常无法用可证实的论点来证明批评的合理性,或者因为他们是个人而缺乏理性基础。批评也适用于书中没有的东西,因为评论者并不关注作品的内容,而是提到他想读的其他主题。考虑到这一切,我们不能认为扎热夫斯基的文本是实质性的,符合学术批评的合理标准。
Medice, cura te ipsum. W odpowiedzi Andrzejowi Zakrzewskiemu
Medice, cura te ipsum. A response to Andrzej Zakrzewski
Andrzej Zakrzewski’s article reviews the book The judiciary adopted by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in fiscal cases (1765–1794) by Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk. The article was published in Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 14, issue 4 (2021). It is an unpleasant example of academic misconduct. Due to the doubts it raises, it is necessary to indicate the abuses committed by the reviewer.
Among Zakrzewski’s numerous remarks, his charge of insufficient use of the literature available on the subject stands out. However, the majority of issues raised by the reviewer either do not relate to things found in the book, or the references found there are irrelevant. The next objection relates to the language used in the work. The reviewer’s arguments result from misunderstanding of the assumptions elucidated in the work.
Polemics with the reviewer are in many cases impossible, because they often fail to justify criticisms with substantiable arguments, or they lack rational bases because of being ad personam. Criticism also applies to what is not in the book, because the reviewer does not focus on the content of the work, but refers to other topics that he would like to read about. Bearing all this in mind, one cannot consider Zakrzewski’s text be substantive and conforming to reasonable standards of academic criticism.