Carthaginian baby-killers again

[Andreas Johansson]

As a card carrying curmudgeon, I've come to believe that the basic principals of rational inquiry, state your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, test your hypothesis, repeat as needed, is no longer being rigorously applied in some academic circles. Simply stated, adjust the evidence to fit your hypothesis rather than adjust your hypothesis to match the evidence. Why this has happened is open to debate.

No longer? I seriously doubt there was ever a golden age when such principles were universally applied in academic circles.

[Chuck the Grey]

First, let me start with a correction. The historian in Ken Burn's The Civil War, Dr. Barbara Fields, teaches at Columbia University not Harvard. In my defense, she did receive her BA from Harvard.

I scanned The Civil War to find the exact quote. If you're interested, see Episode 3, "Forever Free" starting at 16:25 minutes. What Dr. Fields said was, "I lose patience with the argument that because of someone's time his limitations are excusable or even praiseworthy." Her statement is more elegant than my somewhat dim memory. I still disagree with her.
The problem with evaluating historical events, personalities, and decisions based on current values and beliefs is one of viewpoint. We are looking back and can see results, an advantage over the people of the time being studied. We also have to admit that our values have, hopefully, evolved from the values of the historical period as a result of their actions.

Our understanding of the past is also limited if we fail to understand the values, beliefs and social pressures faced by historical figures at that time. Inserting our beliefs and values into the past, perhaps forgetting or ignoring that they likely evolved from the historical period being studied, interferes with gaining a thorough understanding of the historical events.

[Chuck the Grey]

As a card carrying curmudgeon, I've come to believe that the basic principals of rational inquiry, state your hypothesis, examine all the evidence, test your hypothesis, repeat as needed, is no longer being rigorously applied in some academic circles. Simply stated, adjust the evidence to fit your hypothesis rather than adjust your hypothesis to match the evidence. Why this has happened is open to debate.

No longer? I seriously doubt there was ever a golden age when such principles were universally applied in academic circles.

I agree that there never was a Golden Age. However, at the time I took the writing of history class, there was an expectation, for both faculty and students, that a rigorous approach to both research and writing was expected. I'm afraid that that expectation had declined over the years.