Image via Wikipedia
I am delighted at the response I have received and the interest from various different quarters I have prompted with my recent interview/article with Dr. Heather
Vallance "Can History be Objective?"
http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-history-be-objective-conversation.html The discussion has been a fascinatingly varied series of posts from some really interesting people, discounting no one! I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those who have contributed both on the thread and outside it via email. Thank you for lending such a wide scope of
knowledge and experience. I salute you all!
On the subject of
conspiracy theory, which I think is still the strongest and most prolific example of "bad history" in action, I was fascinated by a whole area that dealt with the
psychology of what they call "Conspiracism". Wikipedia has a good entry on this subject that I think may intrigue many of my readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories#Psychological_origins
Image via Wikipedia![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=228a8c42-3298-4e50-acf1-18c649520c28)
3 comments:
Again, well done Jamie on highlighting the Psychology of the subject.
Obviously people will disagree with your posts as most do with mine but you are doing an excellent job of putting good information out there.
It is a pleasure and an honour to find someone on the blogosphere that relies on evidence, wherever that may lead, rather than falling back on faulty belief sytems and intellectual laziness.
Best wishes,
Undercover Sceptic.
It is only in the lay mainstream I get arguments diametrically opposing my views. I don't get the same problem in the historic and scientific mainstream as you will see on here. With the exception of a little spam, I haven't refused a single comment yet. And, as you will see, the debates are all rational ones regarding content and details without a single person arguing the case for conspiracy theory etc.
My recent post on the British sceptic blog pondering why intelligent people can think stupid things: http://sceptic.darkbb.com/scepticality-f1/not-thick-just-stupid-t357.htm
I am not a fan of venting, it doesn't help matters in the long term as it becomes a learned behaviour where you associate outbursts (both mental and physical) as the right response being stressed. However, I would argue that this rant was a little more productive. I feel I was addressing a genuine psychological enigma.
Post a Comment