Can you offer some concrete examples of this within current historical scholarship? Because otherwise you’re doing *the exact thing* you’re accusing academic historians of doing.https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1131927845641437186 …
-
-
Replying to @dandrezner
Don't see how a critical view of some contemporary scholarship qualifies as a "just-so story." I may be mistaken, but your neat inversion doesn't hold. In any case, happy to discuss examples offline, but don't want to get drawn into debates about particular scholars on Twitter.
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Yascha_Mounk
You wrote “Wolf is just the Id of much modern historical scholarship.” Easy to infer you think she’s just the most visible example of a larger trend, rather than an outlier. If that’s the wrong inference then I do apologize. But you’re still making a very swearing generalization.
3 replies 2 retweets 73 likes -
Replying to @dandrezner
I think there's a broader trend in historical scholarship that basically consists of: 1) I believe A. 2) I'll find some history that seems to imply A. The actual scholarship is usually impeccable. But the enterprise, in my mind, unconvincing (and substantially similar).
18 replies 1 retweet 9 likes
I live with an academic historian, know many others & read a fair bit of academic history. Your description strikes me as false. With historians (as with scholars in many fields) there is complex dialogue between theory & research. Research modifies theory, sometimes radically
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.