- This topic has 7 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
What about something like "according to this historian...." and then contrasting it with another historian's point of view?
Yes, I think that would be the most acceptable way of doing things.
This argument takes me back a few years. Does anyone here remember reading David Hackett Fischer's “Historian's Fallacies”?In his rather pedantic classic, Fischer addresses this very issue (or should I say "these issues"), and argues a good case. Like him or not, Fischer's work was, for many of us, a stalwort in our history programs.
Never heard of it, but just checked it out a little on wikipedia. Added it to my Amazon wish list, because it looks like it could be quite useful.
Yes, I had to read it in my Historiography class a few years ago. He makes some good points but sure does get beat up a lot by many so-called academic historians. I thought at the time that he was pointing out logical fallacies and not just specifically historical ones. It is still a good book.
Not necessarily an easy read, but some good info. My only complaint is that it obviously is a good 30 page essay crammed into a 300 page book!
