Originally Posted by marjangles:
“Banks' initial post was motivated by political ideology though wasn't it? I mean a UKIP bankroller claiming immigration was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire to make a point about the present situation isn't exactly politically neutral. He certainly wasn't basing his opinion on historical research but rather lessons from school from a guy whose name he can't even remember which doesn't exactly bode well for him remembering what he learned either.”
Of course it was politically motivated. However I think its somewhat different for a layman to post a politically motivated statement, than it is for an expert who some people will take as fact simply because of their status
Quote:
“I find it truly worrying that people are so quick to dismiss experts these days. Sure it's important when studying anything to actually do some research yourself and to listen to a range of experts from various perspectives before making any decisions on what you believe but Banks doesn't appear to have done any of that. He makes an ill-informed statement and people leap to his defense because it's his 'opinion' and decry Beard because she dares to stick up for her subject
. This is no better than the goons who'll happily tell you that the empire collapsed due to acceptance of homosexuality.
And Beard told him that in her considered opinion that facts didn't bear out what he was saying and that he should do some more reading on the topic, isn't that what she should do, isn't that her right? That's why she challenged him to name the historians that he was relying on when he made his initial statement and why ultimately he backed down because his opinion was baseless.”
First, why do you think his opinion was baseless. Do you think the barbarian migrations didn't play a role in the fall of the western empire? That's pretty far fetched IMO. The last book I read on the subject put it as one of the primary causes.
Second, you miss the point I was making. Beard has every right to disagree with banks, it's the way she went about it which I object to. She made no effort to debate the facts, no counter arguments, no "you should try reading the latest research by x who demonstrated that x was the cause of the fall of the western empire". Nope none of that. Just I'm right and your wrong. That's not rational debate, it's just appeal to authority, a blatant logical fallacy.
Quote:
“For what it's worth the fall of the Roman Empire was a hugely complex process (indeed some historians suggest it didn't actually fall fully until the Ottoman takeover of Constantinople in the fifteenth century) and trying to boil it down into a soundbite for political purposes is dangerous. I'm glad Beard stepped in to stop him getting away with spouting yet more dissembling dressed as fact.”
Of course it's complicated, and I'm more than happy for beard to disagree,its the way she went about it that I think was wrong.
Anyway, I've spent enough of my time defending someone I think is a bit of a part, against someone I respect, so I'll bow out now.