4 ms·

Lecturing on “historical mathematics” without being able to follow a mathematicians papers seems dubious to me. Lecturing on music without being able to play m

Lecturing on “historical mathematics” without being able to follow a mathematicians papers seems dubious to me. Lecturing on music without being able to play music is also suspicious. I would feel very fake if I were one of those people. You would only be able to use second hand sources where someone with real ability has predigested the original works for you.

Ansil849 5y ago
So to return to my question, would you apply this criteria to all historical courses? That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field? How would this work for, say, ancient history?
- watwut 5y ago
  Can't write about historical crime, unless you killed someone. I don't make the rules.
  - MrYellowP 5y ago
    That's an unfair comparison. He seems to point out the fact that theory and practise are only the same in theory, but never in practise. One can always derive theory from practise, but never the other way round. There is room for doubt when someone lacks the practise to back up his theories. A psychologist, who learned everything about psychology, without ever having actually practised it, is equally skilled as someone with experience. He isn't.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Musicology is not about how to create or play music. Music theory is part of it, but so is history, sociology etc. And the comparison does not work even in context of original topic. The article from Beard linked from this blogpost (or blog post itself).
- throwawayarnty 5y ago
  No, my criteria is whether you can understand the original source without relying on another person with real ability to process the source for you. For example, if you want to write the work of a mathematician but cant read or understand the writings of the mathematician, then I would be uncomfortable with that.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Reading Mary Beard article, the ability to read texts for work was not issue at all. The issue was effective sight reading of complex text you are encountering the first time. She was writing about that being slow.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field? All other things being equal first hand practical knowledge is then an edge, so not required but a benefit.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >How would this work for, say, ancient history? In that they should be able to read the ancient languages of the culture they study, for one. Nobody said anything about "firsthand knowledge" in the sense of "having lived in the time of the ancients". But if you insist, sure, a historian that have actually lived at the time, would have a far better understanding of it (all other things being equal, like writing ability and so on). I'd take Thucylides over any modern historian of the Peloponesian war, for example.

Ansil849 5y ago

So to return to my question, would you apply this criteria to all historical courses? That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field? How would this work for, say, ancient history?

watwut 5y ago
Can't write about historical crime, unless you killed someone. I don't make the rules.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  That's an unfair comparison. He seems to point out the fact that theory and practise are only the same in theory, but never in practise. One can always derive theory from practise, but never the other way round. There is room for doubt when someone lacks the practise to back up his theories. A psychologist, who learned everything about psychology, without ever having actually practised it, is equally skilled as someone with experience. He isn't.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Musicology is not about how to create or play music. Music theory is part of it, but so is history, sociology etc. And the comparison does not work even in context of original topic. The article from Beard linked from this blogpost (or blog post itself).
throwawayarnty 5y ago
No, my criteria is whether you can understand the original source without relying on another person with real ability to process the source for you. For example, if you want to write the work of a mathematician but cant read or understand the writings of the mathematician, then I would be uncomfortable with that.
- watwut 5y ago
  Reading Mary Beard article, the ability to read texts for work was not issue at all. The issue was effective sight reading of complex text you are encountering the first time. She was writing about that being slow.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field? All other things being equal first hand practical knowledge is then an edge, so not required but a benefit.
coldtea 5y ago
>How would this work for, say, ancient history? In that they should be able to read the ancient languages of the culture they study, for one. Nobody said anything about "firsthand knowledge" in the sense of "having lived in the time of the ancients". But if you insist, sure, a historian that have actually lived at the time, would have a far better understanding of it (all other things being equal, like writing ability and so on). I'd take Thucylides over any modern historian of the Peloponesian war, for example.