Historians are no different than lawyers, doctors, economists, scientists, or soldiers; given any argument, no matter how one-sided the evidence, you can always find some of them to argue the other side. The evidence on this point is, in fact, quite overwhelming on one side.https://twitter.com/KevinLevin/status/1440676006763773954 …
-
-
Unfortunately, this trend reflects a larger problem with academia in the humanities. The need to say something novel, coupled with the fact that much of the intellectual space has already been staked out, leads to people making increasingly questionable claims.
-
I don't know if it's just that. In social and hard sciences alike, peer approval plays a role in the promotion/tenure process. Thus, the price for non-conformity is high. The other issue is funding - like many, academics will follow the $$ trail, principles be damned.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The worst kind of history is law clerks cherry-picking sources to help their judges reach predetermined outcomes. But don’t think you care about that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.