3 ms·
"This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history." History is a science. This is as if you said: I don't like Max Planc or Niels Bohr Dirac, since they
by piokoch 13y ago
"This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history." History is a science. This is as if you said: I don't like Max Planc or Niels Bohr Dirac, since they were questioning classical mechanics in favor of some hard to understand mambo-jambo called quantum mechanics.
A true historian is a die hard revisionist, someone who is chasing "conspiracy theories" to reveal the truth using scientific reasoning based on evidences, documents.
The article itself is kind of worthless, since it is based on vague speculations, without critical look on the presented hypothesis (the most important, IMHO, part of honest scientific approch is to try to find weakneses in our own theories).
The fact that something sounds probably is not a proove that it is true. If I see blond haired woman, I may put hipothesis, that she's dying her hair - they are blond, after all, but we all understand, that it does not have to be the case.
- gruseom 13y agoHistory is evidence-based, but hardly a science, since it's uncontrollable and unrepeatable. The article itself is kind of worthless, since it is based on vague speculations What "vague speculations"? That doesn't sound like the article I read.
- maratd 13y ago> A true historian is a die hard revisionist Nonsense. A true historian is one who connects the present to the past, allowing us to make informed decisions for a better future. Not someone who sits in an armchair concocting new theories about what really happened. That's nothing more than mental masturbation.
- lobster_johnson 13y agoDid you read the entire article? It provides plenty of sound sources for its rather specific (as opposed to vague) speculations. History is a science only in the sense that "political science" is.