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?