Here are the principles I will adhere to, as far as possible:
- Any positive claim I make, I will support by multiple academic sources.
- Any claim I question in her books, I will trace in the sources as far as humanly possible. I do not have superhuman knowledge of literature, however, and claims she makes for which no sources are available, I may try to verify, but will not go to any great effort beyond the given sources.
Acharya repeatedly points out how much work it is to write books. Criticism aimed at me on some fora have asked me why I do not write a book. Am I not entitled to point out errors in a book? If there are too many of them, am I not entitled to question the value of the book? Seems people seem to think scholarship does not have to suffer the grievous torture of quality assurance.
What do people think the entire idea with having opponents at doctoral dissertations is? It is quality assurance.
So, I probably will not post anything in a couple of months. I do still intend to go through all three of the books already mentioned, but in a more organized manner. I will probably have both chapter-wise reviews, more general argument-related reviews, and finally, some kind of classification along types of error.
Once this is available here, I do hope people will refrain from personal attacks. They're quite silly.