This week, ending in February 12 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Just had a lecture on Carl Hempel and the Covering Law-model. Popper argues vehemently against the search for general laws in history, both from a sociopolitical and a theoretical perspective. I'm inclined to agree with him. What is your stance in this? Are there any convincing arguments to counter Popper?
For anyone who might have missed it, /r/IAmA is hosting an AMA with Bill Bushong, Chief White House Historian and Joel Treese, Senior Research Associate at the White House Historical Association. Make sure to check it out!
So...what do you guys think of New Historicism in English departments? I was an English/History major and sometimes it seemed like lots of people were cherry picking information.