A Dummies Guide to Historical Research

re Fudugazi

Fudugazi said:

Oh, what a thread, what a thread!

Click to expand...

I found your thread interesting - not least because it gives a very clear idea of the history of this section on AT.

It was all so pleasant, you see, that I assumed I was the first person to be attacked - or should I call it 'flamed' - in this way.

About to fall on sword for the general good, and that sort of thing..

However, on the issue of historical research itself. I can perfectly appreciate your feeling, though I cannot live that way. One does, though, so often think that Henry Ford probably should have the last word [ that history is bunk], nd at others I think so many of our constructed arguments in history are really very like medieval theology: unquestioned premises, on which are built constantly-growing intellectual structures, supported by quotations from still older authorities, and aspiriing... not to a higher or clearer picture... but only to add one more brick to the pile on those spurious foundations.

If one accepts that angels are 'fact' and that pins are 'fact' and that the eminent secondary sources are not only logical, but right, then it is possible to argue about angels on a pin-head.

Whole schools of thought about tarot built in that way. Heretics in this discipline, evidently, are called 'trolls'. Curious term - in the context of this 'academic' conversation.

PS - if we notice typos, poor expression etc. in our own posts is there some objection to making the correction as an edit? Should one instead add another post to the thread, drawing everyone's attention to the changes one wants to make?

What is the form?

DianeOD said:

Heretics in this discipline, evidently, are called 'trolls'. Curious term - in the context of this 'academic' conversation.

Click to expand...

Ah, factual correction. "Trolls" is a widely-used term that emerged out of the early days of forums. It means (and I quote the Wiki article linked below):

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I hope that helps.

I am unable to discover if there is a name for a poster who wastes people's time and energy filling a forum with threads and posts they insist are relevant and on-point but appear to be mostly a matter of ego--upping the post count, as Umbrae put it--perhaps with the intent of claiming "ownership" over every "thought" from here to eternity and with the insinuation that people must always pay homage or risk being labelled "idea thieves."

It seems to me such behavior is a "troll in academic clothing" so to speak, but I would appreciate learning if this particular form of forum behavior has a name of its own.

Hi, Umbrae,

Umbrae said:

That statement is so wrong – let’s imagine that I speculate a point. I post it. We bat it around. We exchange facts, we exchange research, we prove or disprove it – that’s called the scientific method and it sure as hell IS history.

Unless history only consists of dry already provable facts.

Click to expand...

Let's imagine that you "prove or disprove" something without any recourse to evidence or rational argument about evidence. That happens all the time in the "formal disciplines", including logic and the many branches of mathematics. But such formal disciplines are by their very nature tautological. Everything "true" derives from certain assumptions and rules of transformation.

History is different. It is an empirical discipline, where some reference to facts is pretty much required. Conclusions are rarely "proven" so much as they are effectively argued, based on evidence. When you say, "we exchange facts", you appear to be talking about the same thing I'm talking about. When you talk about batting ideas around, you appear to be talking about constructing, evaluating, and comparing different arguments based on evidence. I don't quite see the source of your indignation.

When you write that speculation is where history begins, you are stating one possible starting point. Another is that new evidence comes to light. But in either case, we are picking up the history in media res, rather than where history "begins". The history of playing-cards in Europe, and the history of Tarot is pretty well established, taking into account many thousands of pieces of evidence and a great deal of analysis. This is not a virgin field of study where naive guesswork is likely to be of much value.

When you write that speculation is where history begins, you appear to be marginalizing how such speculation is tested and decided -- again, that is by evidence and argument, comparing different hypotheses against one another. On the one hand you mention these things, and on the other you seem to have some point of contention in mind, which isn't clearly stated. What are you really saying here?

Or are you telling us that we are not welcome to post here? As an acedemic – I think clear posting is necessary…what are you really saying here?

Click to expand...

LOL -- as I noted, I'm just a lurker on a day pass, here in large part because some people contacted me offlist and asked about... some particular circumstances. When I arrived, Diane was nice enough to open a discussion with me concerning precisely those circumstances.

In terms of clear posting, I am saying what I said: History, as opposed to fantasy and folklore, requires support from evidence. If someone is happy with unsubstantiated speculation, that's great. But it still isn't history so much as historical fiction, and it doesn't matter how many people may enjoy it or believe it is true.

FYI: the name of this forum is Historical Research - not Already Established Historical Fact Catalogue.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the help. "Historical research" is, by its empirical nature, research involving historical evidence, either reassessing the findings of earlier researchers or finding new evidence. What most of us (online Tarot "historians") do is to study the findings and conclusions of historical researchers, rather than conduct significant original research. Not all of us are sufficiently... how to put this politely... self-confident to believe that our forays into scholarship are of great significance. Paradoxically, those who seem most certain of their own contributions to playing-card history often seem to be the least concerned with such details as citing evidence and earlier researchers... but that's another story.

Debra said:

It seems to me such behavior is a "troll in academic clothing" so to speak, but I would appreciate learning if this particular form of forum behavior has a name of its own.

Click to expand...

You could always coin one. In general, there are a whole lot of techniques recognised as "disruptive" activity. Some of them have been amply demonstrated - deliberately or not - in the past few weeks here. A common one, for example, is just to keep starting more and more threads - mostly wildly irrelevant - until everything else is swamped. That's considered absolutely classic troll behaviour, which is why I used the term.

baba-prague said:

You could always coin one.

Click to expand...

Aristoti-troll?

DianeOD said:

I found your thread interesting - not least because it gives a very clear idea of the history of this section on AT.

It was all so pleasant, you see, that I assumed I was the first person to be attacked - or should I call it 'flamed' - in this way.

About to fall on sword for the general good, and that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

Well now, let’s look at this carefully; put away the steely knives and such…

I don’t care how many TLA’s ya got, or how many college courses you teach or how many books you’ve published, threads like this are lame (it implies that Jews celebrate Easter! Wahahahahahahaha...).

If this is an autograph of your work, it’s no wonder that folks are asking you to fall upon thy own sword. One does not just toss out a factoid, with no connectors. What’s someone to think? This is a classic example of Sloppy Scholarship.

You see…what’s it’s purpose? Looks like a trolling post to me. And no – I don’t care how academic one may be – a troll is a troll.

As to my own personal agenda?

I’d like to see normal folks welcome in the history forum. It ain’t for you edumakated klowns alone.

Or perhaps we should have a special History section, one called Academic Hysterical Section – No Amateurs Welcome, and one called History for Real People.

as for that guy who 20% of his total participation in this forum is to pig-pile on DianeOD...I think the record speaks for itself. Sharks are always attracted to blood in the water.

Peace out...

Umbrae said:

as for that guy who 20% of his total participation in this forum is to pig-pile on DianeOD...I think the record speaks for itself. Sharks are always attracted to blood in the water.

Peace out...

Click to expand...

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
- Haile Selassie

This thread will now be closed.

Moonbow* said:

The subtitle to this forum is Research, studies and theories on the origins and development of Tarot.

To answer Rosanne's question, I would expect posts on all of the above to appear in this forum; and from any member who wishes to post. Credentials and background are not in any way part of what Aeclectic expects to see.

Aeclectic is first and foremost a site for learning and sharing, and as the banner says is "a group of Tarot students, collectors, readers and enthusiasts who enjoy discussing all aspects of Tarot".

It's already been said further up in this thread that the main issue is that anything stated as fact should be supported by fact, and likewise opinion should be written as such. In the main we don't have a problem with that here. It should also be pointed out that this is a public forum where anything posted is open to the whole internet.

I've let this thread run so that people can have their say but for now I think the topic has run it's course, those people have had their say, and Rosanne's important question has been answered. For that reason I am now locking this thread.

Moonbow*

Click to expand...