2 ms·
> The author criticises a historian for jumping to conclusions from a very small sample and then does exactly the same thing himself. Are they? They're respon
by kbenson 3y ago
> The author criticises a historian for jumping to conclusions from a very small sample and then does exactly the same thing himself.
Are they? They're responding to a paper that seems flawed based on the evidence presented. Even if the paper is ultimately correct in its assertion, I see no problem calling out false reasoning and shoddy logic in what is ultimately an academic endeavor. Being right for the wrong reasons can sometimes be much more harmful than not making the assertion in the first place. We're much less likely to build upon faulty foundations when we don't allow poor foundations to persist in the first place.
- mcphage 3y ago> They're responding to a paper that seems flawed based on the evidence presented. No, they're probably right about the papers they mention—they both seem pretty bad. But the "jumping to conclusions from a very small sample" refers to saying that "historians are destroying their own discipline", because of these bunk papers.
- kbenson 3y agoI think the conclusion is not just from the papers, but from what appears to be widespread support regardless of criticism. The sampling is not one or two papers in that respect, it's multiple well known historians and at least one well known group of historians coming our strongly in support publicly.