11-07-2007, 02:51 PM
What Volker wrote above pretty much sums it up. As I said, it mainly seems to be a semantic problem. I don´t see any thing new coming up in this discussion.
In Germany especially people tend to get angry about such statements, since there is a constant withdrawal of funds for the Geisteswissenschaften, since they earn no money. It no longer is a "prestige" subject / field / science here, like it is in America, e.g.
With Historians being permanently under fire to rectify their existence and "usefulness" (i.e. profitability), it might be understandable at least why I had a sort of allergic reaction.
In fact, I wanted to include this link as well in one of my earlier postings - and I did! Look in my first posting in this thread!
I thought about commenting, but I´m runnning out of time. When I´m back from Nijmegen, maybe.
In Germany especially people tend to get angry about such statements, since there is a constant withdrawal of funds for the Geisteswissenschaften, since they earn no money. It no longer is a "prestige" subject / field / science here, like it is in America, e.g.
With Historians being permanently under fire to rectify their existence and "usefulness" (i.e. profitability), it might be understandable at least why I had a sort of allergic reaction.
Quote:I get the distinct impression nobody bothered to click on the link to a description of 'scientific method'. I also notice that it was the scientist who bothered to comment on the historical theory I put, and ironically none of the historians
In fact, I wanted to include this link as well in one of my earlier postings - and I did! Look in my first posting in this thread!
I thought about commenting, but I´m runnning out of time. When I´m back from Nijmegen, maybe.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
