Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Just to give a sense of how lacking in rigor this thing is, I submitted an article for peer review of about 80% the length a bit back. Where this 'report' seeks to answer vast questions about American principles over 200+ years of history... 1/5https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1351306605648891911 …
...my question was a little one - the date and impact of a single piece of Roman armor. Just one piece, over a limited time-span. To do that, I cited a little more than 110 modern works (in 6 languages) and a dozen ancient authors in two ancient languages... 2/5
...in the course of just under 130 footnotes. All to answer a simple question about a single piece of armor. That is not me bragging about how great I am. That is merely how history is done, the level of rigor we expect in our discipline. Every good historian does this. 3/5
That sort of care and systematic presentation of evidence is simply how history is done. Some works may need more or less apparatus, but the rigor that the notes represent is not optional. To do otherwise is to step outside of the discipline of history into mere punditry. 4/5
Meanwhile, this 'report' purports to speak to the founding principles of the United States over two centuries, with nary a note or citation. It is not history, but a statement of faith, a declaration of dogma. And not even a good one at that, the theology is quite poor. end/5
Just spitballing here, but seems possible that "rigor" wasn't really their goal
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
