Quote:
Originally Posted by John Vasco
Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?
|
Several years ago a young Finnish long-chaired civilian historian wrote a doctoral dissertation on the key battles atvtve end of the Winter War in 1940. This topic was a hot one in this country and his study aroused lots of furor. He began the thesis with a long chapter heavily criticising previous publications for lack of analysis, source criticism, hero worship etc. He noted that to be scientific, a historian must analyze the pile of facts and create a logically deducted analysis from those facts and the primary question is why, not what and that simply listing facts is not history as per scientific standarfs, it is a chronicle.