spin

Let me be relatively simplistic: the question is not about history per se, but about (scholarly) methodologies, or more exactly about a methodology for evaluating a methodology. It requires a philosophy of the field, in this case history, in order to make the evaluation.

If that history philosophy involves the notion of saying what actually happened in the past (which is the major part of what I consider central to history and those who attempt the study), an appropriate methodology for analysing a historical methodology would be to see whether the writer is really attempting through his/her methodology to uncover what actually happened in the past. (The writer may of course be trying to uncover what didn't happen in the past as an indirect means of working on what happened.)

The question is, does the methodology of the writer lead to the task of the discipline.


spin

neilgodfrey

I confess my confusion. My understanding is that the question of distinguishing history from nonhistory can only be approached through philosophies of knowledge and history, not 'methodologies' as I understand the term.

Peter Kirby

Maybe you are right. Where's Vorkosigan? He always insists on methodology.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think he usually insists that there is no valid methodology for extracting history from legendary documents.

Peter Kirby

I would assume from such that he values the use of methodology and thinks it sometimes practicable. Anyway, he can clear things up for us.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby