tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post3552426906039703561..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: History and Ufology - The need to avoid ahistorical analysisPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-15572669868218745882007-04-24T09:21:00.000-03:002007-04-24T09:21:00.000-03:00Addendum #3:You're not talking about historians wh...Addendum #3:<BR/><BR/>You're not talking about historians when you refer to preserving the past - you're talking about archivists, and curators. There's a difference. They may be the same in individual cases, but they represent different functions.<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-69888528819319175042007-04-24T07:40:00.000-03:002007-04-24T07:40:00.000-03:00Addendum #1: The facts usually leave room for inte...Addendum #1: The facts usually leave room for interpretation. That's why historians exist! <BR/><BR/>For example - was WWII Hitler's fault? We more or less know how it went down, in general terms, but there will always be argument about that. It requires interpretation, and viewing it all as part of the big picture. AJP Taylor, for example, had a radically different idea than Hugh Trevor-Roper.<BR/><BR/>In the case of UFOs, that requires people to understand historical context. For example, one of the most egregious ahistorical errors people make is assuming that the CIA of the late 1940s was as all-powerful as the CIA we know and love today, when nothing could be further from the truth.<BR/><BR/>Addendum #2: My post was not addressed to you specifically. Generally speaking, I respect your point of view. I just think you're wrong this time (and won't admit it, which, oddly, is what you've accused me of), but you're far from the worst example. :-)<BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-89742796437322883362007-04-24T07:11:00.000-03:002007-04-24T07:11:00.000-03:00Jason:Without the interpretation, and conclusions,...Jason:<BR/><BR/>Without the interpretation, and conclusions, history is just a bunch of dates and numbers. It has to mean something. Of course, everyone can form an opinion based on the information, but some opinions are more informed than others. And if this sounds arrogant, then fine, but mine is more informed than most, especially when it comes to the discipline of historiography, i.e. how to interpret that data and information (more or less).<BR/><BR/>Not all opinions are equal. <BR/><BR/>PaulPaul Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-50126299278553990962007-04-24T05:06:00.000-03:002007-04-24T05:06:00.000-03:00All Due Respect (Seriously, I enjoy debating you. ...All Due Respect (Seriously, I enjoy debating you. :)),<BR/><BR/>Are you forgetting that historians are primarily preservers of history, with the passion for interpreting history on the side. <BR/><BR/>There is only one history, with an infinite number of interpretations and/or revisions.<BR/><BR/>Might I suggest you focus on the facts recorded by history instead of the interpretations of such facts?<BR/><BR/>-JasonDoc Conjurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08569054730270980353noreply@blogger.com