Arming America

[melm00se]

19. response

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Neither did bellesiles critics, mel.

an historian strives to be be as unbiased as possible in not only his/her analysis but also in data collection. Belleisle failed in both regards. Pointing that out is not evidence of bias but of good scholarship.

In an ideal world it works that way, but in the political world, witch hunts thrive.

Books and articles in the academic world are subject to critical scrutiny. Some of it harsh but it is important that those works are closely examined otherwise anyone can publish any amount of bullshit. To the uninitiated, they can seem like witch hunts but they are careful and thoughtful examination of the sources, the work and the conclusions. If you write an academic work, you must be prepared for this level of scrutiny. If you write 100 articles and only 1 gets put under the microscope, you can't bitch and whine that is unfair because, as I said earlier, you must be prepared for this. For someone who has gotten as far as their doctorate, this should have come as no surprise as their doctoral dissertation was (or should have been) examined that closely.