Once more, Philadelphia

Social sciences: retrospect and prospect. I've completed a load of research on this so I was particularly interested in this one. Many of the papers were autobiographical with some interesting details. There was a bit of superiority going on at times and claims of inventing just about every new critical methodology. The best for me (and, ok, I biased but I still think I'm right) was David Horrell's. David raised some important issues which went ignored in the questions, particularly on cultural diversity and the problems of imposing models too strictly. Gager's paper was a good one too and I suspect there are some interesting views on secular approaches he has not too far beneath the surface which I hope he really pursues.

Did go for a few drinks yesterday. Bloggers too. Met Michael Bird for a few (a good lad and a good laugh even despite his evengelicalism). Also met Philip Harland whose work I've used a fair bit (whether he'll approave, I don't know). Then a couple of us from Sheffield met up with Jim West and Chris Heard which was a really good evening (both on the side of Good).

Anyway, off to read Rafael's paper and the Social Sciences group.