|
Re: Monolog?
Gentlemen,
Allow me to offer some clarity.
1. A historian is some-one who has studied, and still is studying, history during a significant portion of his/her time.
2. A licenced historian is some-one who studied the science of history, and got a degree in that. The document proves that he/she has managed to learn the tools of the trade, as taught in a university.
3. A professional historian is some-one from either one of the two categories above, who managed to make a profession out of this activity.
The combinations yield additional types: one can be a professional historian without university training in that field, or a licenced historian who is not a professional because he/she did not find a matching job, or a historian who is neither licenced nor a professional. The last category is also called "amateur historian". If that is understood as "beginner", then the term would not do justice to many "amateurs".
Please note that in these proposed definitions, undefined phrases such as "quality" have no place. Any scientist is as good as the arguments he/she produces, structured by logics, and based on facts that were searched and found in directions that may have been exploited by system, by vision, or by chance. Many licenced historians seem to be amateurs when it comes to methodology. Or at least the tools of the trade are never discussed, as if these are perfect and unquestionable. I find that "unprofessional".
A lot of the proceedings in this thread, and the closed one from which this one sprouts, confuse the man and the ball. The argumentum ad hominem has no place in science, and not on this forum either. What counts are arguments, based on facts and insights. Arguments with which the other guy can disagree in all liberty, if the premisses of the argument can be demonstrated to be in error, and/or if the logic used is at fault.
The utterly inconsistent loss numbers presented by Arnaud Gillet can be called a classical case of how NOT to write history. Or anything else, if one wishes to make sense to others. In prose or poetry one can be as inconsistent as one pleases. In a work of history, if conveying meaningful results of historical research is the target, one had better get such basics right. Meaning the data as well as the method. As lengthy as Grozibou tends to be, he usually scores on this count. His proficiency with languages, and his strong use of that, seem to trigger in others reactions that can hardly be called to the point.
However, Grozibou falls into the experience trap. He states that one has to have read very many books before a qualification to write about history can be called sufficient. As tempting as this statement may seem, there is no logical validity in experience. Nevertheless it is obviously a very good idea to be as widely informed as one can. The more you know, the more it becomes clear that there is much more yet to be known. I would like to expand the statement to other fields of knowledge. It seems that many historians have little more than a working knowledge of the technological fields. If you want to write about firepower of fighter aircraft, you had better understand a few basics of ballistics too. Again Arnaud Gillet's treatment of that subject leads to a merciless, but also a fully justified criticism from Grozibou, who does understand the basics of iron projected at high velocity, and the multiplying factor of explosives carried within such iron.
Grozibou hits the mark with his plea for criticism. That's not designed to annoy others, but to increase knowledge by questioning almost anything. The productive historian never ceases to study. Asking questions is the elementary tool. This may seem too elementary to mention. However, Grozibou is the first that I have read on this forum, or on the rafcommands forum, who raises a methodological issue. That's part and parcel of the science of history too.
I believe that he is also perfectly right that language skills are essential if you wish to study an episode of history that spans several languages, in our case foremost the German, French and English language. When my wife took ill on a journey in Italy, some 30 years ago, I was amazed to find that none of the doctors in the Verona hospital spoke English. How the hell can these guys have followed the international literature in their own field?
There is one point of view that I would like to add to Grozibou's forceful plea for common sense and good scientific manners. It seems that a few of the targets of his arrows are unable to deal effectively with criticism, and that may have resulted from never having learned how to do that. This requires some knowledge, some training, and some ability to see the self not as the Napoleontic centre of the universe. As a generalization, scientists score better on this count than non-scientists.
Regards,
Rob
|