06-15-2009, 12:31 PM
As some of you may have noticed, I am writing a book on common errors about Antiquity. There will be a postscript to it, in which I point out that the main source of errors is not pseudo-science (Atlantis, pyramidiocy, et cetera), but amateur scholarship. Popular authors like Tom Holland can give a second life to ideas that have been refuted more than thirty years ago.
So far, so good. The problem is that it is not just amateur historians who make these errors. Over here in the Netherlands, I know a book written by a professor in ancient history that contains more than 250 factual errors, and I have seen similar publications in English. What these authors are missing, is a sound knowledge of the latest developments in ancient history and the logical foundations of the discipline. In the first category -insufficient knowledge of the plain facts- belongs this book and in the second category -insufficient knowledge of logic- belongs Paul Cartledge, who is capable of repeating logical errors that have been refuted more than a century ago.
What Cartledge and Holland have in common, is that they believe that history is "telling a story based on sources", whereas it also involves knowledge of "what is a cause?", "what type of explanation do you have in mind?", or "what is a fact?" In other words, they believe that history has no logical foundation. (Cartledge is probably unaware of the problem, because he is a classicist-turned-historian and was never formally educated as a historian.)
Now my question: how to call this? It is not pseudo-science or pseudo-history, because authors like these are pretty serious. They are not beyond reason, like Carotta who believes that Jesus Christ is Julius Caesar (JC=JC, need I say more?). They are just unaware of the theoretical foundations of their discipline. How shall we call this?
For the moment, I have called it semi-history, but it is a poor expression. Anyone any thoughts?
So far, so good. The problem is that it is not just amateur historians who make these errors. Over here in the Netherlands, I know a book written by a professor in ancient history that contains more than 250 factual errors, and I have seen similar publications in English. What these authors are missing, is a sound knowledge of the latest developments in ancient history and the logical foundations of the discipline. In the first category -insufficient knowledge of the plain facts- belongs this book and in the second category -insufficient knowledge of logic- belongs Paul Cartledge, who is capable of repeating logical errors that have been refuted more than a century ago.
What Cartledge and Holland have in common, is that they believe that history is "telling a story based on sources", whereas it also involves knowledge of "what is a cause?", "what type of explanation do you have in mind?", or "what is a fact?" In other words, they believe that history has no logical foundation. (Cartledge is probably unaware of the problem, because he is a classicist-turned-historian and was never formally educated as a historian.)
Now my question: how to call this? It is not pseudo-science or pseudo-history, because authors like these are pretty serious. They are not beyond reason, like Carotta who believes that Jesus Christ is Julius Caesar (JC=JC, need I say more?). They are just unaware of the theoretical foundations of their discipline. How shall we call this?
For the moment, I have called it semi-history, but it is a poor expression. Anyone any thoughts?
