An experiment

[wigngown]

Pierre is clearly educated so I find it highly improbable that he doesn't understand the most basic of statements or disceminate whats in front of him. I wouldn't say it's all a wind up, but I'm sure some of it is. I know this has been proposed previously.
Best regards.

[Elamarna]

Pierre is clearly educated so I find it highly improbable that he doesn't understand the most basic of statements or disceminate whats in front of him. I wouldn't say it's all a wind up, but I'm sure some of it is. I know this has been proposed previously.
Best regards.

Hi Wigngown,

I am afraid you are almost certainly right,
Pierre has claimed on occasions that once his suspect is revealed the world of Ripper related research will cease to exist.

post #222 thread "let there be light":

"That is my destiny, David, since everyone is afraid of what they might hear in the future.

So everything I say must be disputed from the beginning.

Otherwise the small field of ripperology may be destroyed.

Regards, Pierre"


I seriously hope that this is "wind up" if for no other reason than "if not" what does it say about Pierre.

Steve

[wigngown]

Hi Steve,
Can't disagree with what you say.

I can't accept that someone of Pierres apparent intelligence has difficulty in grasping some things that really are quite simple.

Ive often wondered if Pierre is in fact Bruce Robinson, or one of his researchers, employed in doing a follow up book to 'They all love Jack'!

Certainly somethings not right.

Best Regards.

[Pcdunn]

History is a broad field...

Sure!

Someone with a degree of history, who has studied history at a university, i.e. not psychology or something else.

Regards, Pierre

Okay. What kind of history? World, European, American?
What time period? Victorian, Elizabethean, the Greco-Roman?
History of what? Trains? Clowns? Crime?

Just "history" is very broad, and would cover the general survey courses taught in high school, which isn't what you're after, I think. Even at the community college where I am a librarian, they separate "history" into world and American, ancient and modern, etc.

I think you're looking for what we call peer-reviewed, or scholarly, sources on the topic of Jack the Ripper. These books will contain the following items: an index, bibliographical notes or a list of references and sources ("bibliography"), and will usually have been reviewed in journals devoted to the field or subject the book is about. Likewise, articles will include the references used in researching them.

A person with knowledge of British history, specifically the Victorian era, could write a scholarly book about JTR; so could someone who studied psychology with an emphasis on criminal psychology.

[Pierre]

Okay. What kind of history? World, European, American?
What time period? Victorian, Elizabethean, the Greco-Roman?
History of what? Trains? Clowns? Crime?

Just "history" is very broad, and would cover the general survey courses taught in high school, which isn't what you're after, I think. Even at the community college where I am a librarian, they separate "history" into world and American, ancient and modern, etc.

I think you're looking for what we call peer-reviewed, or scholarly, sources on the topic of Jack the Ripper. These books will contain the following items: an index, bibliographical notes or a list of references and sources ("bibliography"), and will usually have been reviewed in journals devoted to the field or subject the book is about. Likewise, articles will include the references used in researching them.

A person with knowledge of British history, specifically the Victorian era, could write a scholarly book about JTR; so could someone who studied psychology with an emphasis on criminal psychology.

Hi,

I mean what I say, academic history. Academic historians use historical methods. And historical methods are the only methods relevant for writing history. That is why I am asking you for books written by academic historians.

It doesn´t matter if it is peer-reviewed if there are no historical methods. If there are no historical methods, there can be no history.

I understand that many of you do not know anything about historical methods. And still, you believe that you are reading "history", when you read books or "theories" about "Jack the Ripper". You are often being fooled, since it is not history and since the theories are built on non historical contents.

So the easiest way for you to quickly get som overview of what historical methods are is to read this:

(Even if I do not recommend Wikipedia but as you have no books at the moment about historical methods, this is better than nothing. I have excerpted some important points for you).

"Source criticism

Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:

1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2.Where was it produced (localization)?

3.By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4.From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5.In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6.What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism.

R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."

Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Procedures for contradictory sources

Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:

1.If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.

2.However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

4.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

6.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

7.When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.

Core principles for determining reliability

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén:

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.

Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[

1.Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2.How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3.How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? 1.Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2.When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.

4.What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

5.Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

6.Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

7.Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.

8.Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely.

If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus.

If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1.The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4.The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

5.The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6.It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7.It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

If you would like to read books about historical methods, you can find it here: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic...historiography

Regards, Pierre

[Errata]

Hi,

I mean what I say, academic history. Academic historians use historical methods. And historical methods are the only methods relevant for writing history. That is why I am asking you for books written by academic historians.

It doesn´t matter if it is peer-reviewed if there are no historical methods. If there are no historical methods, there can be no history.

I understand that many of you do not know anything about historical methods. And still, you believe that you are reading "history", when you read books or "theories" about "Jack the Ripper". You are often being fooled, since it is not history and since the theories are built on non historical contents.

So the easiest way for you to quickly get som overview of what historical methods are is to read this:

(Even if I do not recommend Wikipedia but as you have no books at the moment about historical methods, this is better than nothing. I have excerpted some important points for you).

"Source criticism

Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:

1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2.Where was it produced (localization)?

3.By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4.From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5.In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6.What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism.

R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."

Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Procedures for contradictory sources

Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:

1.If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.

2.However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

4.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

6.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

7.When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.

Core principles for determining reliability

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén:

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.

Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[

1.Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2.How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3.How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? 1.Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2.When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.

4.What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

5.Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

6.Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

7.Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.

8.Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely.

If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus.

If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1.The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4.The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

5.The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6.It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7.It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

If you would like to read books about historical methods, you can find it here: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic...historiography

Regards, Pierre

So in other words, anyone who had a freshman year in college, because that's where you learn source criticism and research method.

[Azarna]

Every thread where I see the bold posts, things tend to get complicated and bogged down in arguments over semantics.

[Elamarna]

Hi,

I mean what I say, academic history. Academic historians use historical methods. And historical methods are the only methods relevant for writing history. That is why I am asking you for books written by academic historians.

It doesn´t matter if it is peer-reviewed if there are no historical methods. If there are no historical methods, there can be no history.

I understand that many of you do not know anything about historical methods. And still, you believe that you are reading "history", when you read books about "Jack the Ripper"

So the easiest way for you to quickly get som overview of what they are is to read this (even if I do not recommend Wikipedia but as you have no books in historical methods, this is better than nothing. I have excerpted some important points:

"Source criticism

Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:

1.When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2.Where was it produced (localization)?

3.By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4.From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5.In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6.What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism.

R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."

Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Procedures for contradictory sources

Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:

1.If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.

2.However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3.The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

4.When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5.Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.

6.If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

7.When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.

Core principles for determining reliability

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén:

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.

Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Eyewitness evidence

R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[

1.Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?

2.How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?

3.How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? 1.Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2.When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.

4.What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?

5.Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

6.Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

7.Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.

8.Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely.

If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus.

If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6]

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:

1.The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4.The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

5.The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6.It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7.It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

If you would like to read books about historical methods, you can find it here: http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic...historiography

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Thank you for the lesson.
Unfortunately you are not here to teach others, whom are certainly not here to be lectured to by yourself.
This is a message board and forum, not a University, you seem to have forgotten this my friend.
People here will continue to discuss things the way they want; not the way you want.

I am sorry that you just do not understand or grasp that point.

Your approach to history is not the ONLY one possible.

The one you use, is one used for teaching undergraduates how to approach their work and analyse it, is a functional definition and approach, no more.no less!


Errata

I had almost lost the point of the post Pierre was replying to, reading his long, long post..

yes his definition of an academic historian appears to be those studying history at university. you said freshmen, I widened it to undergraduates.
It would be no surprise if he disagreed on this point however.

Regards

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;376419]Pierre

Thank you for the lesson.
Unfortunately you are not here to teach others, whom are certainly not here to be lectured to by yourself.

It is not a lesson. It is reality.

This is a message board and forum, not a University, you seem to have forgotten this my friend.

Yes. And we are all entitled to speak about the case from the knowledge we have.

People here will continue to discuss things the way they want; not the way you want.

Of course they will. As people have been discussing the case the way they wanted for 128 years.

I am sorry that you just do not understand or grasp that point.

Yes. Since I realize the problems of this point.

Your approach to history is not the ONLY one possible.

No, but historical methods are the only methods for generating history, i.e. scientific knowledge about the past. There is no way around it.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It is not a lesson. It is reality.

My friend it is a lesson! you are preaching! as you always do!

.

Yes. And we are all entitled to speak about the case from the knowledge we have.

And this of course is the sticking point, there is no knowledge of your knowledge.
You have been asked time and time again to kindly provide details of any academic works you have been involved with, but as to date you have not,

I do not of course expect a meaningful reply to that, such would give to much away, would it not!

regards

Steve

[wigngown]

Pierre may not want others to know his identity which he would surely disclose if he produced his academic works. Not an insurmountable problem though: Pierre could redact his personal details! I don't doubt Pierre's claims, but I'd still be interested in seeing his academic history.
Best regards.

[Elamarna]

Pierre may not want others to know his identity which he would surely disclose if he produced his academic works. Not an insurmountable problem though: Pierre could redact his personal details! I don't doubt Pierre's claims, but I'd still be interested in seeing his academic history.
Best regards.

Wigngown

I believe you are correct and that is the reason he does not respond, not that he cannot.

steve

[John G]

Pierre may not want others to know his identity which he would surely disclose if he produced his academic works. Not an insurmountable problem though: Pierre could redact his personal details! I don't doubt Pierre's claims, but I'd still be interested in seeing his academic history.
Best regards.

I think Pierre is probably just a very modest character, as can be clearly discerned from his posts. Moreover, when I asked him about his qualifications some time ago he mentioned a Masters in sociology, with a specific interest in probability, but completely neglected to mention his much more relevant history qualification, presumably not wishes to boast about it

[GUT]

I think Pierre is probably just a very modest character, as can be clearly discerned from his posts. Moreover, when I asked him about his qualifications some time ago he mentioned a Masters in sociology, with a specific interest in probability, but completely neglected to mention his much more relevant history qualification, presumably not wishes to boast about it

Or he just forgot about it.

I seem to recall prior to him telling you his degree was in sociology he claimed to be a scientist.

[John G]

Or he just forgot about it.

I seem to recall prior to him telling you his degree was in sociology he claimed to be a scientist.

Yes, perhaps Pierre has got a poor memory for such things, possibly because he's so focused on his activities in the world of academia. Obviously this is something that I should make allowances for.