Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "Andy, I don't think the historical evidence supports that Hitler was an atheist. Andy, could you and others do a scholarly article on Hitler's Table Talk. The Wikipedia ar..."
Andy, I don't think the historical evidence supports that Hitler was an atheist.
Andy, could you and others do a scholarly article on [[Hitler's Table Talk]]. The Wikipedia article cites the poor, atheist historian [[Richard Carrier]] and I think it is probably a mistake to cite Carrier. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk HERE] is Wikipedia's article.
Also, could you/others write an article on [[Religious views of Adolf Hitler]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler HERE] is the Wikipedia article on the topic.
Historiography principles to keep in mind:
*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]
"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]
Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography:
Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from [[Josh McDowell]]'s book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.
(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.
(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."
(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.
(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)
Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations:
*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing]
I think Conservapedia should strive to have the best material on Hitler's views based on sound historical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 19 June 2015 (EDT)
Andy, could you and others do a scholarly article on [[Hitler's Table Talk]]. The Wikipedia article cites the poor, atheist historian [[Richard Carrier]] and I think it is probably a mistake to cite Carrier. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk HERE] is Wikipedia's article.
Also, could you/others write an article on [[Religious views of Adolf Hitler]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler HERE] is the Wikipedia article on the topic.
Historiography principles to keep in mind:
*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]
*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]
"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]
Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography:
Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from [[Josh McDowell]]'s book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.
(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.
(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."
(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.
(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)
Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations:
*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing]
I think Conservapedia should strive to have the best material on Hitler's views based on sound historical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 19 June 2015 (EDT)