I never read the book, but ironically it came up as a subject on Mediev-L list I'm subscribed to. It was pretty heavily criticized as a crack-pot type interpretation of history. The main complaints, however, is that it did not follow standard historical methodology, such as making conclusions from unsupportable evidence, interpreting evidence out of context, and more importantly, ignoring (or failing to address) evidence that contradicts the main thesis of the book.
Although occasionally advances in historical knowledge can occur by "outsiders" (i.e. non-professionals), more often than not these people have little to add (and therefore would be fine for "pop" or introductory history), or rather, lack training in methodology so that their conclusions are twisted or unsupportable. I liken it akin to if I talked about astronomy. I might have a lot of information about it, and generally could possibly even teach it, but any real new discoveries (beyond finding comets and other stellar bodies...I'm thinking more in the line of astrophysics or new theories) would be beyond me because I lack training in formal methodology of science and Astronomy research.
Or you could do what some of us real astronomers do, and bull$hit a lot . . .
Thread Confluence Maru
At 12:08 PM 1/11/04, Damon Agretto wrote:
Forgot to add that another thing a professional has going for him is a body of knowledge only a professional can have.
Damon.
Yep. If you know enough trivia, you can fill an entire lecture period and never say anything useful . . .
Spring Term Classes Start Tomorrow Maru
-- Ronn! :)
Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL
Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
