3 ms·
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 sub
by 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.