Scholars & History
D. Spencer Hines
news:Xns9A92B7479D4...@216.250.184.7...
> In news:vj6n141a84sthk5sa...@4ax.com Professor Irwin Corey
> <prof....@whatsamatter.edu> wrote:
>
>> In <OKCSj.9332$1m3.6603@trndny02>, fnij...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>>In <Mdadnxyc5nzztifv...@bt.com>, on 05/02/2008
>>> at 09:31 AM, Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> said:
>>>
>>>>Scholars do compile Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Anyone can compile and/or edit Wikipedia.
>>
>> Are you claiming that none of them are Scholars?
>
> Are you claiming that being a "scholar" is some sort of guarantee that
> the items will be factual or unbiased?
>
> Presumably, the comedian Professor Corey is your model of a scholar.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's quite true....
One simply cannot TRUST "scholars" to give us Unbiased History or even
Objectivity.
"Having taught in a university history department for more than 36 years
now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on the street before asking an
academic colleague in history." Norman Ravitch, Professor of History,
University of California, Riverside in _ The Wall Street Journal _ , 5
Nov 1998, p. A23.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:i5OSj.503$v91....@eagle.america.net...
They're all afraid of feminists and their gays.
Johansson Inger E
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:i5OSj.503$v91....@eagle.america.net...
Hi DSH,
problem with history and scholars are the same as with present day's
interpretation of background and forseen future events on on hand and
scholars on the other.
It's an idealic situation assuming that scholars can and will be neutral
towards the observed and/or analysed documentation and observations. But the
moment a scholar present his or her questions to ask in study the scholar
loose the neutral position. The choices made are personal and personal
opinion never can be objective or neutral.
Thus it had been good had each scholar acknowledge that and tried to explain
his or her present opinion trying to avoid dependence, tendency and above
all circle proof. The later has been seen over and over in so called studies
by scholars.....
It's a pity. Isn't it.
Inger E
D. Spencer Hines
Yes it a IS a pity.
The most we can hope for is that historical scholars give us personal
biographical details about their birth, family history, upbringing,
education ---- and political, social, economic and sexual orientations....
So we KNOW what their BIASES are.
But as we see so readily on USENET, the great majority of them are NOT
willing to do that and continue to insist it's all "IRRELEVANT" -- but we
should still TRUST them.
NO SALE.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
"Johansson Inger E" <1732jo...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:kTPSj.6875$R_4....@newsb.telia.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Hi, Inger,
Yes, it IS a pity.
Dr. James West, Ph.D.
Anyone can claim to be a scholar. Religion nuts do it all the time.
To say that wikipedia was compiled by scholars is very dishonest.
IMHO,
;-)