what you're saying is "this paper is based on a host of unexamined assumptions, all of which no historian in their right mind would ever make in 2019, but please critique the data that's created from that flawed model rather than (on twitter!) pointing out the flawed assumptions"
-
-
Replying to @prof_gabriele @beausievers and
or, perhaps more seriously, would you take seriously a paper on psychology written by a historian and published in a history journal so that it never went through appropriate peer review? no, and you shouldn't. it'd be nothing more than fan fic.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @samuelmehr @prof_gabriele and
Considering the overwhelming response from people who actually study this stuff for a living, if they did get a peer review then they didn’t do a good job.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @samuelmehr @prof_gabriele and
Excuse me, but when historians say that an article is poorly researched and bad scholarship because it does not acknowledge the vast historiography on this very topic, that goes beyond not liking it.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @samuelmehr @prof_gabriele and
The general critique is from experts in the field.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I would agree with you, but that only counts when they actually reckon with the scholarship. You can’t roll up and say you’ve figured it all out without acknowledging what’s been done.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.