Rules of Historical Reasoning

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Neil

Thank you for answering my question. I read with interest your discussion of Bernard Cohen.
Bernard Cohen (born 1963) is an Australian writer, the author of five novels and a children's picture book...
Unfortunately, the name of the person in question is I. Bernard Cohen. From the link I provided you to the Harvard University Press site, under the book's about-the-authors tab:
I. Bernard Cohen was Victor S. Thomas Professor of the History of Science, Emeritus, at Harvard University, and one of the founders of the modern study of the history of science.
You were unable to research the information you needed on Google, even though I had provided you a tabbed link directly to it.

"Bernard Cohen" is a common name. It is not the correct name of the person you were researching. The person you found is obviously not on-topic. Nevertheless, you couldn't establish that a book called Revolution in Science was written by somebody else, a historian with a similar name?

But you're supposedly an expert on research methodology.

No, you're not.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by spin »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:32 pm Neil
I suggest you have never even read a work by a professional historian and all your bluster to the contrary will not advance a case to the contrary one whit.
Do you deny that I. Bernard Cohen was a historian, or do you assert that I lied when I said I read his book?
Not speaking for Neil, but I. Bernard Cohen was a scientist. I work on the notion that when we generically talk about historians as experts we are talking about people with tenure at a recognized university in the field of history. Cohen may have encyclopaedic knowledge etc., but that doesn't make him any more a historian than a shelf full of history books would.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

spin
that doesn't make him any more a historian than a shelf full of history books would.
It also doesn't make him the writer whom Neil went on and on about.

As to whether Harvard improperly gave Cohen an endowed chair in history, I am confident that if you write to Harvard, then somebody on staff will give your complaint all the attention it deserves. In the meantime, I defined the term I was using, and Cohen's career fits.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:27 pm Neil

Thank you for answering my question. I read with interest your discussion of Bernard Cohen.
Bernard Cohen (born 1963) is an Australian writer, the author of five novels and a children's picture book...
Unfortunately, the name of the person in question is I. Bernard Cohen. From the link I provided you to the Harvard University Press site, under the book's about-the-authors tab:
I. Bernard Cohen was Victor S. Thomas Professor of the History of Science, Emeritus, at Harvard University, and one of the founders of the modern study of the history of science.
You were unable to research the information you needed on Google, even though I had provided you a tabbed link directly to it.

"Bernard Cohen" is a common name. It is not the correct name of the person you were researching. The person you found is obviously not on-topic. Nevertheless, you couldn't establish that a book called Revolution in Science was written by somebody else, a historian with a similar name?

But you're supposedly an expert on research methodology.

No, you're not.
I saw/see no link to your Bernard Cohen. Don't expect me to go back hunting for links that I am supposed to guess exist somewhere and don't expect me to remember details of all your comments for more than two minutes after reading or skimming them.

But thanks for the reference now. I will have a look and get back to you. But it is reassuring to know you have read at least one history book.

Bernard Cohen did write a postmodernist satire of Bob Menzies so I guess I mistakenly put two and two together -- the Australian historical topic and the postmodernist perspective and came up with Paul the Uncertain.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Neil

I gave you the link. You needn't "hunt" for anything.

But hunt you did, and found somebody with a different name who could not possibly be the person who wrote the book you asked about. But your feeble grasp of research methodology, including your endless talk about the need to question sources, couldn't work out that the answer to "Why would anybody bring up this guy?" was that nobody had.

You talk a good game, though, I'll give you that.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:23 am Neil

I gave you the link. You needn't "hunt" for anything.

But hunt you did, and found somebody with a different name who could not possibly be the person who wrote the book you asked about. But your feeble grasp of research methodology, including your endless talk about the need to question sources, couldn't work out that the answer to "Why would anybody bring up this guy?" was that nobody had.

You talk a good game, though, I'll give you that.
There is no link at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3445&start=40#p74507

At least none visible to me. (I unfortunately misread the I initial as 1 and thought that there had been some typo or oversight in editing and a 2 failed to make the final cut. Mea culpa. I know now so thanks for your patience.)

But I see the book is in our State Library though in store -- so I will see if I can access it tomorrow when passing by there.

But from what I see in the Amazon excerpts it does look like you have chosen a professional historian and one who, if the Preface is any guide, would be expected to write according to the five "rules" set out by Mark Day.

So does I. Bernard Cohen NOT prioritize primary sources? Does he NOT read them critically? Does he not analyze those sources? (I get the impression from the Preface that that's what I would expect to read him doing in the following chapters.) . . . . ??

Does he fail to do these things? If so, then I am surprised to read that he has such a high reputation as a historian of science. (Of course it is possible, but I suspect we have here a historian writing a work based on the normal "rules" of historical research. I am open to being proven wrong, though. In which case, I guess, I will have to concede that the one historian you have read was a dud.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by spin »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:27 am spin
that doesn't make him any more a historian than a shelf full of history books would.
It also doesn't make him the writer whom Neil went on and on about.
As I said, I wasn't speaking for Neil.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:27 amAs to whether Harvard improperly gave Cohen an endowed chair in history, I am confident that if you write to Harvard, then somebody on staff will give your complaint all the attention it deserves. In the meantime, I defined the term I was using, and Cohen's career fits.
So does he have a degree in history?? I mean not a degree in the "history of science"--a degree in "history". (The latter implies a certain knowledge of the theory of history, while the former implies a strong overview in the developments in science.)

While we are here, are you asserting that I.B. Cohen abjured the basic tenets of historical methodology... at least as referred to in the O.P. and as espoused by Mark Day? If so, what historical methodology did he practice?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:23 am Neil

. . . .
But hunt you did, and found somebody with a different name who could not possibly be the person who wrote the book you asked about. But your feeble grasp of research methodology, including your endless talk about the need to question sources, couldn't work out that the answer to "Why would anybody bring up this guy?" was that nobody had.

You talk a good game, though, I'll give you that.
Perhaps, Paul, I was of the understanding that the "historian" you named was one who did not abide by Day's "five rules" since I was under the impression that you were sure no historian did seriously bother with them in real life.

I am surprised you appear to have been referring to one who actually would be expected to write according to the "rules".

The one I chose at least sounds like he blends historical research with more creative approaches -- of the sort I thought you advocated.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Neil

The link I provided was here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3445&start=30#p74505

You quoted from that post in the immediately following post in this thread.

That I provided a link is irrelevant to what you posted, since you obviously didn't use it. Instead, you demonstrated your search skills and the care you take in questioning your sources.

You made a mistake, Neil. If that's all there was to it, and you had owned up to it, then it'd be no big deal, just par for the course. But you don't acknowledge that you and you alone are responsible for the accuracy and relevance of what you choose to publish, and that you and you alone visibly failed to question your source.

What is it you keep calling another poster? Time waster? Yeah, that's what you are. Thanks for articulating it for me.

You already rested your case. This discussion is over.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:49 am
This discussion is over.
So I conclude that no one denies that the one historian you have read researched according to the rules as set out by Mark Day.

I was wrong to think you had read a postmodernist novelist-historian who pays them minimal attention.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply