Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
A lot of these studies fall to some really basic first-year-of-grad-school kind of errors! I am consistency befuddled as to how anyone gets very advanced in some of these fields without learning the garbage-in, garbage-out principle, and yet here we are. Again. 5/9
Woefully incomplete datasets, problems in framing assumptions, lack of comparative basis, and an apparent ignorance of the nuances of the evidence and what it can tell us versus what it can't. 6/9
Honestly, in my 100-level survey course, I have assignments built around moving students to these sorts of realizations, "oh, this source doesn't give me evidence for what people thought, only for what *this* person said" kind of stuff. And yet, here we are. Again. 7/9
And I do mean *again* - Fafinski here, with a real economy of words, does a great job of setting out this tradition of 'scientific' pseudo-history - from Spengler and Huntington to Turchin, Henrich and Safra. He could have easily added Arthur de Gobineau (d 1882). 8/9
Anyway, it's a good article. The key thing is to remember that no amount of fancy math can raise the reliability of a conclusion any higher than the reliability of the evidence it is based on. A statue with feet of clay is made no stronger by casting the torso in steel. end/9
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
