4 ms·
If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expre
by jjk166 6y ago
If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions.
If a historian cited a work that turned out to be a forgery, and did not acknowledge in their paper that it was a forgery, then their paper would certainly be suspect. True citing a retracted paper is not automatically 100% unacceptable, but it is something that should automatically demand further scrutiny.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> If a historian cites Mein Kampf, they're using it as a primary source - they might not agree with the opinions expressed within but they do believe Hitler expressed those opinions. Yes... same as a scientist uses citations. Citing someone doesn't mean 'I fully believe and support this person', it means 'I'm referring to what this person said' and they believe that's what the paper said. That's all. The text using the citation adds the context of what the author thinks.
- jjk166 6y agoYou've completely missed what I was saying. A historian doesn't cite Mein Kampf to give context to what they're saying, the historian uses Mein Kampf as data. For a historian, Mein Kampf is perfectly valid data. On the other hand, Mein Kampf 2: Meiner Kampfer is not valid data, and any paper citing it as if it were should be immediately considered suspect. A scientist citing a retracted paper is like a historian citing a forgery: fine if it's a harmless aside, catastrophic if their claims hinge upon its reliability.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> the historian uses Mein Kampf as data So... the same way that a scientist could cite a retracted paper. To say that these people said this thing and then it was retracted. To discuss the context of that retraction and what it means, and so on.