3 ms·
Your assertion was: > The danger of professional historians is that they pretend to not inject bias into their interpretation of history, this is false. One
by defrost 2y ago
Your assertion was:
> The danger of professional historians is that they pretend to not inject bias into their interpretation of history,
this is false.
One example given, multiple others exist.
While it's dull to list them all, it's a basic fact that examination of bias is basic entry level undergraduate Hisory 101.
It's like linear algebra in a mathematics course.
> Funny in a world of “history” channel where many of these professional historians are ...
Yeah. You see, there's your problem.
You're confusing infotainment grifters on sugary video productions with actual historians.
Pro Tip: The woman in a lab coat with a stethoscope recommending drugs to ask your doctor for in the ad breaks isn't a medical professional.
- abletonlive 2y agoHow convenient that historians that exhibit behavior that proves my point are not real historians but the ones that exhibit behavior that prove your point qualify. You seem to believe that professional historians are only so if they support your viewpoint. With that kind of logic how could you possibly be wrong? I didn't realize that we were operating under your magical ability to purity test historians. Of course it'd be the case that the likes of EP Thompson and Niall Ferguson or Will Durant are passable even with their wildly biased interpretations of history, but dinesh d'souza or david irving are clearly not professionals because, you said so.