54253Re: [Authentic_SCA] A question about peace
- Sep 7, 2006Ah, yes, the Britannica...another bastion of scholastic integrity. Saying
that Wikipedia has roughly the same error rate isn't REALLY all that
My point is this; the article is an EXREMELY brief treatment of an incedibly
complex topic, one that is rendered more complex by the fact that most
Westerners are completely clueless when it comes to Asian history, or
historical point-of-view. Japanese historiography is a field that mostly
doesn't exist in the English language, but there are good, detailed,
scholarly works on the subject, in English even.
My PROBLEM is that this incredibly un-detailed, incomplete, factually vague
article is used as support for an assertion that ISN'T TRUE.
We don't cite the Britannica as an authority on anything - at least, I
don't, and I hope no one else here does, either. Why Wikipedia? 'Cause
I admit to bias. As a frequent researcher, sometime professional academic,
and frequent user of the university system, I have high standards for
research and documentation. That's why I'm here - I thought the whole point
of this listserve was to raise the level of scholarly discourse.
The problem with sources like Wikipedia, Britannica, Worlds Book, etc, is
that they are so vague that they are often wrong. It's like your junior
high history textbooks - you know, the ones that covered world history in
300 pages, with illustrations. I defy you to show me any broad assertion in
that book that cannot be disproven with a minimum of research.
Yeah, we can't all come visit each other's living rooms and peruse each
others libraries. That's no excuse for lack of critical faculty in
evalauting the sources we DO cite.
I'm just trying to do it a little more rigorous, and little more in-depth,
and little better than has been done before.
Rob Van Rens
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>