Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Counterfactual history- Does it have a place on the History forum?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You and MD are getting caught up in this one thread (debating it further seems pointless to me however you can decide yourself if continuing this is achieving anything).

    The initial point was that counterfactual history threads have existed in this forum before now.

    Can we agree on that?

    There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be.

    I usually defer to the professional historian's on those item's and there was quite a good referenced crash course on it right here.

    EDIT- and there are a few issue's on factual history that some of us are trying to get cleared up too.


  • #103
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would make the point though that it was you who pushed me to become involved in the discussion (if you do not accept this then look over the past 2 pages of this thread).

    As a mod I expected you to give better direction that you did on this thread - the issue that I asked you to clarify as the OP and mod was what was the point in this thread?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    We are all adults here MD- no need for 'points' or games. You have to accept it and get on with things if people do not agree with your point of view.

    And before you claim the higher moral ground here, acceptance goes both ways - and I saw very little of your acceptance to anything on this thread which did not support your views. I would suggest in future that you refrain from introducing opinion threads where you yourself so obviously have a dog in the race and don't want to 'lose' the argument or can't accept that others might not agree with you.


  • #104
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be.

    I usually defer to the professional historian's on those item's and there was quite a good referenced crash course on it right here.

    EDIT- and there are a few issue's on factual history that some of us are trying to get cleared up too.

    Excellent point - and something that has been missed by most....


  • #105
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    [Edit: Not worth it. If people don't want to engage then they shouldn't]
    CDfm wrote:
    There is a difference in opinion over what you are calling counterfactual history and what other's understand it to be
    I think it's pretty damning that at, what, six pages into the thread there is still no agreement on just what counterfactal history is. It is absolutely absurd that at this stage we still have people dismissing the approach as "rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history"


  • #106
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    And before you claim the higher moral ground here, acceptance goes both ways - and I saw very little of your acceptance to anything on this thread which did not support your views. I would suggest in future that you refrain from introducing opinion threads where you yourself so obviously have a dog in the race and don't want to 'lose' the argument or can't accept that others might not agree with you.

    For clarity I would point out that you have misrepresented my opinion with your "dog in the race" comment. My opinion is stated in post 77 and I would prefer it to be quoted rather than interpreted as this would prevent any confusion.

    When people cannot bring themselves to admit that counterfactual threads are not new to the forum (as above) it tells me that this discussion is going nowhere for the moment. Thus I will leave it to others to express their views as was my intention in the first place.


  • #107
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Are you assuming that would happen using history as an academic discipline as a benchmark.

    Have the mods clarified that ?

    This is all hypothetical, clearly as this thread is.

    My definition of CF/what if would be allowed in this forum now anyway, I am almost certain.


  • #108
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    I think this thread is an excellent example of when you pose a question based on opinions and ask people to just join in with no aim whatsoever at any resolution - we are just going around in circles, with a blatant twisting of what has actually been said in order to what, win debating points?
    I believe it is called discourse, an essential form of enquiry.
    It's pathetic nonsense...

    What I have said about the issue is on the record - trying to turn what I and others said who 'opposed ' the notion of counter factual history ON THE FORUM into some imagined attack on genuine inquiry is patently fallacious - and frankly Slowburner you are being hugely disingenuous in doing so.
    For the last time.
    I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact.
    That's all, nothing disingenuous about it.


  • #109
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Reekwind wrote: »
    [Edit: Not worth it. If people don't want to engage then they shouldn't]

    I think it's pretty damning that at, what, six pages into the thread there is still no agreement on just what counterfactal history is. It is absolutely absurd that at this stage we still have people dismissing the approach as "rubbish discussions based on fiction passing as history"

    Maybe it's because there isn't agreement on how ordinary history is handled that when you get a more sophisticated technique ,which this is,that you can encounter a problem.

    Your fascinating and succinct summary of Carr ,right down to his reappraisal of Stalin & Trotsky, was a pleasure to read.

    Maybe if there was a greater sense of community ?.
    conor.hogan.2 wrote: »
    This is all hypothetical, clearly as this thread is.

    My definition of CF/what if would be allowed in this forum now anyway, I am almost certain.

    As a historical tool it makes sense to me as my primary degree is in economics and changing a variable as an analytic tool is something that I am ,of course, comfortable with.

    In Irish history, you have the revisionist debate and the traditional romantic nationalist approach is deep rooted and this makes history difficult without an approach that lean's on history as a discipline. It should give freedom to discuss emotive subject's retrospectively and rationally.

    So yes , the technique is great when properly used but that is not what is being discussed, what is being discussed is how it would be applied here.


  • #110
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    For clarity I would point out that you have misrepresented my opinion with your "dog in the race" comment. My opinion is stated in post 77 and I would prefer it to be quoted rather than interpreted as this would prevent any confusion.

    When people cannot bring themselves to admit that counterfactual threads are not new to the forum (as above) it tells me that this discussion is going nowhere for the moment. Thus I will leave it to others to express their views as was my intention in the first place.
    slowburner wrote: »
    I believe it is called discourse, an essential form of enquiry.For the last time.
    I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact.
    That's all, nothing disingenuous about it.



    MarchDub
    Closed Account

    Join Date: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,681
    Adverts | Friends

    Well that's a reply.


  • #111
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    slowburner wrote: »
    ...I question your reluctance to tolerate any form of enquiry - outside the basic strictures of historical fact...

    MarchDub
    Closed Account

    Join Date: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,681
    Adverts | Friends
    That's a shame, but it is what it is.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I haven't seen such asshattery in this forum for a long time.

    If a mod (or any poster, for that matter) wants to gauge public opinion on a subject relevant to the forum they should be able to do so without being subject to assumption-led hysteria.


  • #113
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    As a historian MarchDub is the real deal. Lot's of academic's just pass thru, MD stuck around.


  • #114
    indioblack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭indioblack


    CDfm wrote: »
    As a historian MarchDub is the real deal. Lot's of academic's just pass thru, MD stuck around.
    Pity - he may return.


  • #115
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub
    Closed Account

    Join Date: Jan 2008
    Posts: 1,681
    Adverts | Friends

    This is unfortunate. Personally I enjoyed MD's contribution and He will be welcomed back should he choose to return.


  • #116
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    I agree.


  • #117
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Pity to see MarchDub has closed his/her account. S/he was one of the more articulate people here.


  • #118
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    No- Does'nt meet the standards of historiography.
    CDfm wrote: »
    So yes , the technique is great when properly used but that is not what is being discussed, what is being discussed is how it would be applied here.

    It would be applied as close to how it is academically. The mods would have the final say as with everything.


  • #119
    Ozymandiaz
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Ozymandiaz


    Counter-factual history is pure speculation. It is about as useful as counter-factual science or counter-factual evidence in a court of law. It is self-indulgent chrystal ball gazing.

    History is about the past as it actaully happened, or as far as we can establish it. It is difficult enough to determine in itself without resorting to imagined 'what ifs'!


Advertisement