Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Comp. evidence is easily the worst source of bad-pop-history-mistakes (that I talked about above). It goes like this: Scholar1 estimates in technical lit. something based on little bit of hard evidence and some comparative evidence. Clearly signals that this is guesswork. 47/52
That guess might be the number of mules in use by the Roman army (based on more modern army pack animal usage). It might be the direction of currency flows in the first century CE (based on modern econ. theory). But it's a guess, not firm. 48/52
Writer2 puts together general survey of question, incorporates Scholar1's guess, but text is meant for general audience, so the guess is not signaled. It looks like we *know* that fact, when we don't! 49/52
BookReviewer3 cries foul, but in a specialist publication. Meanwhile, Scholar4 (specialist in different field) reads Writer2's book and doesn't realize this is a guess, and so bases his argument on it. And now you have a scholarly argument supported by nothing but air. 50/52
And ancient historians screaming that arguments are 'built on sand' or that we 'can't know that' from the evidence and being ignored by other disciplines and breathy think pieces in the media. 51/52
That's my rant. When in doubt, ask a specialist "what is this based on?" and signal comp. evidence *clearly.* Also Check out my blog for more ancient history https://acoup.blog/ And don't worry Ath. Pol., I still love you (Narrator: "...he lied unconvincingly.") end/52
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
LOL