Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?
It may have the function of a shirt, but it's not a shirt any longer. A potato sack can be altered to have the same function as a shirt. Doesn't make it a shirt.
As for Hutton... what evidence do you have that suggests his (assumed) claims about there being no longer enough information are incorrect? Are you privy to some primary sources that Hutton is not? What evidence do you have that suggests Gildas is not a biased writer himself?
Finding another author with whom you agree more doesn't not constitute evidence that the author you disagree with is wrong. All authors have some bias... even academic ones. In many ways, academic authors who are dealing with history and anthropology are MORE inclined to bias that others, simply because they are working with limited and incomplete primary sources. It is up to them to fill in the gaps in the source material... and frankly, I prefer an academic who is very up front about the flaws in his sources over the one who blithely fills the gaps with his own opinions and doesn't own up to that fact.
If you wish to gain a completely 100% unbiased view of a period of time for which we have limited primary sources, you'd best get started inventing a time machine. Because that's the only way you'll eliminate the bias required for the educated guesswork of anthropology.
Originally posted by sionnach
View Post
As for Hutton... what evidence do you have that suggests his (assumed) claims about there being no longer enough information are incorrect? Are you privy to some primary sources that Hutton is not? What evidence do you have that suggests Gildas is not a biased writer himself?
Finding another author with whom you agree more doesn't not constitute evidence that the author you disagree with is wrong. All authors have some bias... even academic ones. In many ways, academic authors who are dealing with history and anthropology are MORE inclined to bias that others, simply because they are working with limited and incomplete primary sources. It is up to them to fill in the gaps in the source material... and frankly, I prefer an academic who is very up front about the flaws in his sources over the one who blithely fills the gaps with his own opinions and doesn't own up to that fact.
If you wish to gain a completely 100% unbiased view of a period of time for which we have limited primary sources, you'd best get started inventing a time machine. Because that's the only way you'll eliminate the bias required for the educated guesswork of anthropology.
Comment