Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen
Indeed, bollocks you wrote. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Just ask any university trained historian (by the way, I am not an academic) as to what are the cornerstones of scientific history writing. I have quoted and am quoting simply what professional academic historians consider the duties of a professional historian.
If edwest2's post was so true, what do you think would happen to historiography of say ancient Roman history? Documentary evidence is very fragmented at best and if one cannot speculate on anything, writing a coherent history becomes impossible. Even lots of WW2 political history requires speculation because there is no documentation on everything.
|
'...You have completely misunderstood what I wrote...' No I have not!
'...Just ask any university trained historian (by the way, I am not an academic) as to what are the cornerstones of scientific history writing...' There is no feckin' way on this earth I would ask a university-trained historian anything. I have found that those with a university education who spout are the most self-opinionated, arrogant, bastards on this earth, who accept nothing except what they say and believe.
'...am quoting simply what professional academic historians consider the duties of a professional historian..' So what they say is gospel, then? Do me a feckin' favour!!!
'...if one cannot speculate on anything, writing a coherent history becomes impossible...' So speculating equals a coherent history? Do you realise how stupid your remark is? Probably not...