Posted: May 07, 2015 1:01 pm
igorfrankensteen wrote:As one of the few resident Historians, I'll point out that your opening post is disorganized, and strongly suggests that you made no effort at all to even so much as look up the various definitions of the term 'History.'
Pretty quick on to the attack. 'Disorganized', 'made no effort at all': obviously, I will take to heart the telling critique of a 'resident Historian' (with a capital H, no less)
If I had wanted to look definitions up, that is what I would have done. I wrote the post because I am interest in what contributors here have to say. Obviously, it could be that they go with one or more of the said definitions. It sounds like you do, so perhaps you would point me to the definition of history which you consider to be correct.
You seem to be leaning heavily towards dismissing all Historical research as mere conjecture out of hand, on the grounds that people have to interpret events, in order to describe what happened.
And you reach this conclusion because I asked people here what their opinion was?
Your lack of consideration of the consequences of blindly discarding all references to the study of the past, is...amusing.
Your assumption that that is what I am doing is ... interesting.
I actually think historical research is both important and interesting. But I already know what I think. I was wanting to find out what other people think.