3 ms·
I strongly considered pursuing a PhD in history a couple of decades ago. I figured there was so much disprovable BS published following dominant narratives that
by drewcoo 3y ago
I strongly considered pursuing a PhD in history a couple of decades ago. I figured there was so much disprovable BS published following dominant narratives that it would be easy to make a mark as a debunker.
Then I realized that if the problem was so widespread, I'd be up against the whole educational ecosystem.
- Apocryphon 3y agoPlenty of opportunity to [for a book](https://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281 https://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/07...) or [two](https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Across-America-Historic-Sites/dp/1620974339 https://www.amazon.com/Lies-Across-America-Historic-Sites/dp...)
- godelski 3y agoGuess what happens when you have to publish novel work frequently. About subjects that people have been writing about for decades or centuries. Not just that, but you don't get access to certain documents and archives unless you follow certain narratives of certain counties and regimes.
- allturtles 3y agoWhat you are describing basically just what all historians do. All historians are "debunkers," because to be doing novel research, they have to be disputing prior claims about their historical field of interest. e.g. Bulstrode is here "debunking" (incorrectly, it seems) the prevailing story about Cort's ironmaking progress.