Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And the idea that Turchin is " filling a historiographical niche left empty by academic historians" is just evidence that Graeme Wood doesn't know much about what historians are doing. There are lots of wide-angle histories of all sorts of things...
...I've recommended a number on the blog! The 'niche' Turchin is filling is 'baseless speculation that sounds sophisticated to people who know little about the matter.' Sure, historians are not filling that niche. Nor should we.
Any time you see anyone saying, especially in any popular magazine, "there isn't a lot of work on x" it pretty well shows they have no idea what they're talking about. There's lots and lots of work on most everything, much less topics of general interest.
There's probably room for a "why megahistories suck" book out there. Just imagine the demand for a book that would allow you to dunk on your Diamond-quoting friends.
I've had people burn bridges over the fact that, upon finding out that I was a historian, they immediately asked if I had read Jared Diamond, and I responded "yes, but his work is not taken very seriously in the field."
"Iron laws that predict the rise and fall of societies" Which ones? The Great Man? Whig? Darwinist? Hegelian dialectical materialism? Marx? Spengler?
If it isn't too much trouble, I'd love to read your review of Secular Cycles. I think I'd learn something about historiography from seeing you tear it apart. What I find really curious here is that economists and historians seem to have exactly the opposite reax to Turchin.
I understand that economists and historians have a lot of ongoing intellectual rivalries, and a lot of it has to do with economists' attempts to use mathematical models to do big history. I'm really interested in reading your view on that, as well.
The issue with the approach is exactly the quality of the data they use to construct their models. But his crowd is more sophisticated than you are giving them credit for. Even in the likely event their datasets are flawed and the conclusions are garbage, it’s still useful work
@curtdoolittle Thoughts on thread?
Ian Morris is a better analogy - someone else trying to do a similar thing. That is, a look at the whole sweep of history, with some quantitative stuff. He's less overconfident than Turchin, though.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
