Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale
I do hope that members will devote comparable energy to this book once it’s actually out and they’ve read it.
Meanwhile, I see no legitimate cause for anger over the term ‘scientific’. It’s perfectly applicable to historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case. One should take account of all the evidence, not just the bits that suit some preconception, and keep alert to potential bias both in one’s sources and oneself. You reach a conclusion rather than start out with one. Also, as in science, the writer has to accept that their conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery.
|
It's not anger, Nick, just a request for an explanation of the term 'scientific', that's all. And if your definition is accepted (historical enquiry in the sense of amassing all the evidence you can from all sides and going where it takes you, irrespective of what you first thought might be the case), which is perfectly reasonable, then that is what I (and a whole host of other researchers) have been doing since 1980! Do I see my research as 'scientific'? No, just research. Into primary documents and contact with those who took part. That's research, nothing more complicated.
As for this: '...conclusions are only as good as the last bit of data and could be blown away tomorrow by some new discovery...' I completely agree, that is not in dispute. Look out for certain things surfacing in a work later this year...