I got mostly all A’s in history. The difference between me and you is that you didn’t retain anything.
We were talking about science. What scientific training do you have? As for history, you are forever saying that you are a "student of history". That's nice. I am a professeur of history. And if you were one of my students, I'm not at all sure you would get an A...
It probably depends. Anything outside of Western European history gets a little fuzzy to him. I'd be astonished if he knew what the Joseon dynasty was without looking it up.
That is not a problem. No historian can know everything. I freely admit that, outside of the area I deal with the most (Middle Eastern and Mediterranean history, from the Sumerians to the Romans, with a little more recent French history, up to about the 100 years war), I'm not familiar with everything, either. (I also know some of the basics of Madagascan history, come to think of it, but that is not at all part of what I teach. It's just because I like Madagascar.) What makes a good student of history is not an attempt to know every aspect of history, but the way in which he evaluates the data (which is always incomplete and sometimes even contradictory), what biases he has and how he justifies them, and how he acts toward others who are specialized in the same area of history and have other interpretations.
Agreed. Every student of a subject has an area of expertise. Mine is horror literature. But I do think that too myopic of a viewpoint is detrimental to one's overall knowledge. For instance, I can tell you the difference between Emily and Charlotte Bronte, even though I'm not a fan of that period or genre at all. Likewise, I also sometimes confuse Hebry James and James Joyce, which is the literary equivalent of the postganglionic fiber and preganglionic nerve. My point was more that FF's knowledge of history is willfully confined only to his own interests. So far as he's concerned, Asia didn't really exist before Marco Polo went there. So while I can pull a B+ in Black Feminist Literature of the Late 20th Century, he'd be totally lost in a class on, say, Mesoamerican societies of the 1200s.
And yes, that is actually a class I took in grad school, by the way. And yes, it was the the only B+ I got in 4 semester's with of A's, lol. I'm sure the reading selections would make Al cry blood, lol. But at least afterwards he'd know who Audre Lord is.
Which is fine, and is important, but has more limited relevance to overall historical events we tend to discuss. With that said, I know whose brain to pick for that branch of American history now.
Here’s some recent history and science for you. Remember when Kamala Harris and many other Democrats said they wouldn’t take the vaccine if it came from Trump? Yeah, they didn’t really care about the science, they only cared about power. Remember when Gavin Newsome arrested surfers because they weren’t social distancing, in the freaking ocean? Yeah that’s not based on science. Remember when the media said that ivermectin was horse medicine and not for humans? That’s wasn’t based on science. I could go on, but I think as a professor, you should be able to get my point. Forgive me if I don’t trust the people who claim to “trust the science.”
A) Sources? B) Kamala Harris =/= scientist. Gavin Newsome =/= scientist. Random news anchor =/= scientist.
You do realize that by relying on anecdotal evidence from non-scientists to think you have somehow proven something about science, you are making your case even worse, don't you? Or are you so far gone that you can't even see that? That would certainly explain a lot of things.
Which is all well and good. I can’t say I always view history through the lens of historical data of the period. But this guy has gotten facts flat out wrong. Like saying some thing so stupid like Nazi’s won WWII (he didn’t, but that is just a poor example of how badly wrong he has gotten other historical data)
Believe me, I fully agree with you that his credentials as a "student of history" are, to say the least, suspect. I was merely pointing out that not recognizing the name of a Korean dynasty is not a sign that someone is not good at history. It is always possible to be very proficient in some particular field of history and dismally ignorant in others. An Egyptologist might not know the difference between the Pipinides and the Carolingians, but that would by no means indicate that he isn't good with Egyptian history. A highly qualified professor of pre-Columbian American history might not have any idea what the late bronze age collapse was all about, but might actually be an expert on the Aztecs and the Incas. (Whereas I freely admit that I know very little about them, but could talk for hours about the late bronze age collapse.) My point was that if someone is to be criticized, it is wisest to do it on the basis of true shortcomings rather than a weak argument like "you must not be a good historian, because you don't know this particular subject". That's like dismissing someone's credentials as a molecular biologist because he doesn't know about the (apparent) contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Well, compared to the total extent of knowledge that could exist about the universe, or even about our little corner of it, we all "know little". As someone said: "We pick pebbles on the shore of a boundless ocean." The wisest course of action is to have accurate knowledge of those subjects you claim to know, even if there are an uncountable plethora of subjects about which you know almost nothing.
It’s like when a person chooses to … say use reusable grocery bags; others will call that person a hypocrite because there aren’t solar panels on their house.
I don't remember that, can you cite your source? I do remember them saying they wouldn't take it just because Trump said to if there wasn't scientific backing to his claim. However that suggests that they did care about science in direct opposition to your claim, so you must be thinking about a different incident and I'd love to see it.
That's probably because you have a car. You should walk everywhere, or ride a bicycle. Don't you know you are destroying the planet? I, however, am not a hypocrite: I don't have solar panels and I drive a car! I am happily destroying the planet! Just last week, though, I decided to do something to make the world more beautiful: I burned up all those old tyres in my yard, poured out all those old paint cans into the creek in the woods, and buried all those old car batteries that have been cluttering up my garage. I hope you are all proud of me!
Charlotte was the pixie; Emily was the goth. Anyone who doesn't sense this intuitively needs to be beaten.
We have a Great Depression coming, so why not a new Dust Bowl? The Next Dust Bowl Is (Probably) Coming. Here’s What to Know Prolonged drought across much of the U.S. is the new normal. It's on track to get worse. Here's what federal scientists want wildlife managers, ranchers, farmers, and gardeners to know about it. Source: https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/soil-moisture-next-dust-bowl/
UK ‘built for climate that no longer exists’ and needs urgent changes to survive global heating, report warns
