McAdams prefers poli-historians?

On Nov 14, 7:37 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011 12:09:41 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 13, 9:45=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 12 Nov 2011 23:08:45 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >So anything you try to confer on me that contains *Pamela believes* is
> >> >wrong.
>
> >> You claim to be an historian?
>
> >I am demonstrating that I am an historian.  You just don't like it. My
> >profs on both sides of the Atlantic, not to mention my father, would have
> >a few choice words for your taking potshots at my education.
>
> I very much doubt that, Pamela.

I have no doubt of it.  How about the profs who mentored my University Honors thesis?  How about those who elected me to PBK? 

Of course, I must admit there were a few who didn't like me.  Their general comment went something like this -- "Nobody could be that smart!"

>
>
>
> >> Historians have to sift through evidence and reach conclusions.
>
> >I have already stated than an historian can take the same evidence and
> >argue from at least two opposing positions.
>
> But a responsible historian will reach a conclusion when the evidence
> warrants.
>
"A responsible historian"?  To my understanding, you seem unaware of the responsibility of an historian.  You seem to have a very narrow perception of what is involved.  That is ok; but to demand that every historian fit into the mold you create is about as unrealistic as trying to rewrite the dictionary, don't you think?


> Refusing to reach a conclusion when the evidence warrants it is not
> good history.

Your opinion.  You are entitled.  I think it is short-sighted and unrealistic.

There are historians who tell people what to think.  I call them poly-historians. I have little doubt that your favorites are those who tell people to believe the WCR.
>
> >Some do 'reach conclusions'; others do not even state their thesis -- they
> >demonstrate it, allowing the reader to be persuaded to come to the
> >conclusion they prefer.  But I don't expect that you can understand that;
> >the framework of poli sci seems to be to do a hachet job on the evidence.
>
> You are making a silly ad hominem argument, Pamela.

Apologies -- I have no intention of speaking of you personally, but rather of the limitations of your field of expertise. 

It is my thinking that poli sci, which seems to be devoted to telling vulnerable people what to believe, can only limit one's perception of an historical process that encourages people to think for themselves.

Am I mistaken?
>
> I present tons of evidence her:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>
> If you refuse to accept it, that's your problem.

It is the job of an historian to persuade the reader, not make demands.

Any website that claims everyone but the WCR lied is bound to raise at least one huge red flag with me. 
>
>
>
> >> You just refuse to deal with the evidence.
>
> >The tactics you use only work to try to redefine the evidence.  Poli sci
> >seems to be a false study of history.  A rewriting of history according to
> >an agenda.
>
> I, and Barb and Glenn and Mary Ferrell and David Lifton figured out
> Judyth long ago.

Good for you. 
>
> You are been REALLY SLOW to figure her out.

I had to find out for myself.  In addition, I have gotten her to demonstrate to me and others what she is all about.  That is far more effective in my book than making guesses.
>
> You don't have a "process."  Your "process" is to avoid a process. 

You don't have a process.  You cannot accept that I do. 
>
> It's an emotional attachment to Judyth that has impeded your ability
> to evaluate evidence.
>
I disagree. 

I got to know her.  I treated her fairly.  You don't like that.