Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 18:00:24 EDT
Given that I am still in transition and have little ability to get
email expect this debate to be slow motion.
> from: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> date: Fri, 30 May 2003 01:50:10
> to: email@example.com,
> subject: Re: An interesting atheist book
> Historians do read the 19th Century literature, they
> also use a far broader set of resources than Glenn
> gives them credit for. Perhaps a little primer on
> different historical methodological approaches would
> help to explain why good historians doing solid
> historical work do not reach the same conclusion as
It is interesting that I just reviewed a book for ASA on 19th century
impact of evolution on victorian society. I would cite that author
as a prime example of not reading very much 19th century literature.
He cited only 5 or so authors from that century. All the rest were
historical books stating what that historian thought about the 19th
century. Primary data should be ...well...primary in any valid
research. Sorry, but I think it rather poor to write books on the
19th century by predominantly citing 20th century historians. If such
is the methodology of modern historical research, then I would
suggest it is a very sad state of affairs.
It is like a person writing a book on the Roman Empire without citing
any of the ancient writers who were actually there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 18:04:18 EDT