John Wilkins has managed to shake off his bevy of admiring science blogging groupies long enough to write a post on scientists as historians. I’ll read it later, but now I should be listening to Bill talking about spatial synchrony in extinctions. Anyway, These matters were kicked around a few weeks ago, and naturally I added my ha’peth worth then. John seems to be arguing that scientists are bad historians, which was one of the points I was stumbling towards.
Anyway, go and read, and can you report back, please.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- October 2023
- November 2021
- March 2015
- November 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
Categories
Meta
bq. The ways in which prior work is characterised depends significantly on the hopes the scientists has for the future of their discipline. Historians notionally (*more often honoured in the breach than the observance*, one fears) do not.
Way to shoot down your own argument, eh?