Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:06 am
Neil
Now, that's flippant. Hear how different that is from using the characteristic legacy speech of my nation?
If you define historian as, say, a person employed full-time by a post-secondary educational institution whose duties include writing and teaching about research into aspects of the human past, then you've already mentioned some.
Personally, I don't have any problem with the heuristics as generally good ideas to keep in mind when it is possible to apply them. But that's what heuristic means, isn't it?
Bart's an American, and he may have in good faith meant the verb to prove in the sense that American trial lawyers typically use the term: to offer evidence favoring some conclusion. Lawyers are practical people: they know they aren't doing mathematics, and they know they cannot control whether their evidence persuades. Nevertheless "proof" has a nice sound to it, and that's what they say, whenever possible.No, his use of photographs as means of "proving someone existed" was logically fallacious.
Golly, I wish my browser had this "read aloud" feature that yours does.You sound flippant.
Now, that's flippant. Hear how different that is from using the characteristic legacy speech of my nation?
Depends on what a historian is, I reckon. If you define historian as someone who abides by the proposed rules, then there are none who don't. (Possibly because nobody at all strictly adheres to those "rules," as you have already discussed with another poster).I'd be interested if you could point to any historians who don't use them.
If you define historian as, say, a person employed full-time by a post-secondary educational institution whose duties include writing and teaching about research into aspects of the human past, then you've already mentioned some.
Personally, I don't have any problem with the heuristics as generally good ideas to keep in mind when it is possible to apply them. But that's what heuristic means, isn't it?