4 ms·

The opinion piece went from Neil deGrasse Tyson to Breivik and white supremacy in five paragraphs. I reckon you need a special set of glasses to appreciate thes

The opinion piece went from Neil deGrasse Tyson to Breivik and white supremacy in five paragraphs. I reckon you need a special set of glasses to appreciate these kind of articles.

jurimasa 4y ago
[flagged]
- bigger_inside 4y ago
  Book reviews are, by definition, opinion pieces. And I've written a bunch of them. They're assessments of the book, and thereby assessments of the content, theoretical orientation, and conclusion of the book, and thereby of the subject matter that the book covers.
BugsJustFindMe 4y ago
> I reckon you need a special set of glasses to appreciate these kind of articles Well, yes. Just like one would need a special set of glasses to appreciate an article on threads vs coroutines. Historians write at other historians with the same short-cutting assumptions about loyalty to the author's position as software engineers writing at other software engineers. If we want to get the right understanding then we need to start with the right base frame of reference.
- suddenclarity 4y ago
  That's not what I'm talking about.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I think that's his point. You are on "a level", historians are on a different level. Reality has many perspectives to it, and people have strong feelings about them.
    - suddenclarity 4y ago
      No. I'm not talking about having infield knowledge or references. Granted my master is in a different field but I spent several years at university with the subject and fitting read one course titled History of Science due to a childhood dream of becoming an archaeologist. I don't recommend it, the job market is close to nonexistent. I'm talking about the political narrative that the authors history revisionism is resting on. You need to be a believer before reading the article to believe it.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        > Granted my master is in a different field but I spent several years at university with the subject and fitting read one course titled History of Science due to a childhood dream of becoming an archaeologist. My wife is a history professor. Her qualifying exams involved reading more than 250 academic books in various subfields related to hers. This is before she even really started her major research. History professors really do have just a completely different level of background than somebody who took a single course at university. Like, I would expect the typical history professor to have read something resembling 1000x the amount of academic work than somebody who took a single course. So yeah, I'd expect a review written by a historian of a book written by a historian intended to be read by other historians will have wildly different context about the way that a subfield has evolved and been used or abused by various people over time.
- _glass 4y ago
  Depends also on the historian. In my grad studies history courses, age/sex/race/gender was so 80s, and thought of not at all sufficient to understand history.

The opinion piece went from Neil deGrasse Tyson to Breivik and white supremacy in five paragraphs. I reckon you need a special set of glasses to appreciate these kind of articles.

jurimasa 4y ago

[flagged]

bigger_inside 4y ago
Book reviews are, by definition, opinion pieces. And I've written a bunch of them. They're assessments of the book, and thereby assessments of the content, theoretical orientation, and conclusion of the book, and thereby of the subject matter that the book covers.

BugsJustFindMe 4y ago

> I reckon you need a special set of glasses to appreciate these kind of articles Well, yes. Just like one would need a special set of glasses to appreciate an article on threads vs coroutines. Historians write at other historians with the same short-cutting assumptions about loyalty to the author's position as software engineers writing at other software engineers. If we want to get the right understanding then we need to start with the right base frame of reference.

suddenclarity 4y ago
That's not what I'm talking about.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I think that's his point. You are on "a level", historians are on a different level. Reality has many perspectives to it, and people have strong feelings about them.
  - suddenclarity 4y ago
    No. I'm not talking about having infield knowledge or references. Granted my master is in a different field but I spent several years at university with the subject and fitting read one course titled History of Science due to a childhood dream of becoming an archaeologist. I don't recommend it, the job market is close to nonexistent. I'm talking about the political narrative that the authors history revisionism is resting on. You need to be a believer before reading the article to believe it.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      > Granted my master is in a different field but I spent several years at university with the subject and fitting read one course titled History of Science due to a childhood dream of becoming an archaeologist. My wife is a history professor. Her qualifying exams involved reading more than 250 academic books in various subfields related to hers. This is before she even really started her major research. History professors really do have just a completely different level of background than somebody who took a single course at university. Like, I would expect the typical history professor to have read something resembling 1000x the amount of academic work than somebody who took a single course. So yeah, I'd expect a review written by a historian of a book written by a historian intended to be read by other historians will have wildly different context about the way that a subfield has evolved and been used or abused by various people over time.
_glass 4y ago
Depends also on the historian. In my grad studies history courses, age/sex/race/gender was so 80s, and thought of not at all sufficient to understand history.