What Is Needed In Order to Have a Scholarly Dialogue

I recently listened to a lecture given by William Wilson. He provided a definition of what it means to have a scholarly dialogue. I liked his definition. I made some additions to it [in brackets], and I figured I would share it with you:

Simplistic as it may sound, the chief requirements for [scholarly] dialogue may be courage and honesty.

By courage, I mean:

• The individual scholar's willingness to put his or her ego up for stakes,


• [Diligently and objectively searching all possible perspectives and information on the topic,]


• Abandoning long-cherished positions when necessary,


• And acknowledging how and why one's mind has changed.

By honesty, I mean:

• Citing other scholars accurately in context and crediting one's sources fully,


• [Ideally using only those sources which are of the highest quality and credibility,]


• Refusing on principle to distort the evidence or another scholar's view,


• And not pretending to have an expertise one does not possess.

What do you think? Is there anything you would add or revise about this definition?