With a corresponding robust reading list if I remember correctly!
Quote:
The validity or "authority" of a person's paper/essay/article/book does not come from their credentials, it comes from the strength of their arguments and the evidence they use to support their arguments.
You are basically defending the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
aalan94 said:Quote:
The validity or "authority" of a person's paper/essay/article/book does not come from their credentials, it comes from the strength of their arguments and the evidence they use to support their arguments.
You are basically defending the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
No, I'm simply stating that the assumption of authority may lie on false premises. The credential is not the PhD, the credential is knowledge of the relevant history.
The strength of the arguments is only as good as the depth of the knowledge and research behind the arguments. I could make a pretty good argument about anything with only half of the requisite knowledge. But it would be incomplete, and a layman, not knowing the holes, would misinterpret it. If I made the case that the German invasion of the Soviet Union was tactically sound and omitted the existence of the T-34 tank and the IL-2 Sturmovik, my argument might sound smart to a reader, but would be fallacious.
Then that would be a weak argument. If it "sounds smart" but doesn't hold water when a person with knowledge of the subject takes a look at it then it's not a good argument.Quote:
I could make a pretty good argument about anything with only half of the requisite knowledge. But it would be incomplete, and a layman, not knowing the holes, would misinterpret it.
BQ78 said:
Ya'll keep up the discussion I'm enjoying it as a person with regular contact with Civil War historians both professorial and layman.
My two cents is to come down slightly with what Aalan is saying. I find that many professors are offended by laymen historians and they disdainfully discount their work. But I would say professors tend to be more narrowly focused and deep into certain things.
Don't even get me started on gender and ethnic studies in history which are the "basket weaving degrees" of history today or the blackballing of professors who specialize in military history.
I can see what you are saying with this but there is a reason for some disdain. I will just start with the current trend of TV mouthpieces cranking out poor history. They put little research into what they are writing, spend very little time thinking through and connecting pieces, and rush to write just to put out a book that will pad their pockets, not increase the level of understanding and knowledge of history. Yes they are entertaining and much easier to read (a serious fault of most academic history is how dry it is) but at times dangerously inaccurate.BQ78 said:
My two cents is to come down slightly with what Aalan is saying. I find that many professors are offended by laymen historians and they disdainfully discount their work. But I would say professors tend to be more narrowly focused and deep into certain things.
I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.Quote:
They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
I cannot disagree with you there. It is a shame that some professionals forget why they in this field. From day 1 of my advanced education we have had it beat into us to leave personal bias and beliefs out of the research. Sadly, not everyone takes it to heart.BQ78 said:I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.Quote:
They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
BQ78 said:I find this a problem with both lay and professorial historians and not confined to just one group over the other.Quote:
They walk in with a notion and idea of what they are looking for and want to write. Instead of following the evidence and writing what it reveals they end up chained to their own agenda and biases.
NormanAg said:Yes, it is. I tried a couple of times to convince the OP that he is not looking at the "Big Picture". If he is able to prove his case that Sullie had no connection to the KKK (which I firmly believe) , it will make NO difference to the folks who want his stature removed.Quote:
This whole thread is so strange.
They will just move on to their next "reason" - probably the fact that he was a General in the Confederate Army.
The OP is fighting a skirmish and ignoring the REAL war that is going on here.
"Whitecapping" [edit] appears to be the act of vigilante justice done by conservative (traditional/democratic supporting groups of the time) groups. I know one of the major McLennan County historians so I'm going to inquire with him on this incident and on L.S. Ross.Quote:
The governor to-day wrote a pointed letter to the county attorney of McLennan county, directing him to hunt up and prosecute the perpetrators of the white cap outrage at Waco, and if necessary to call on the executive department of state for assistance. Governor Ross denounces the outrage, and says the state doesn't require a lawless body as an agency to right wrongs, real or fancied, and when a secret organization assumes the execution of law government ceases to exist. Fort Worth Daily Gazette, 13 December 1888, page 2
(p124)