- Jul 30, 2019
I find a lot of similarities between the historical method used properly and the method lawyers have been trained in regarding finding and using source or evidence. "Words matter" and so does "letting the chips fall where they may". If one is expressing an "opinion" rather than a fact-based conclusion, they should say so. And it's a good idea to treat all sources and "accepted wisdom" with skepticism. You may end up in the same place, but you'll have gotten there by putting it to the test first.
I find that folks whose biases overwhelm their otherwise strong analytic capacities often fall into excruciating cherry-picking, self-serving prioritization of source material (and its corresponding dismissal of evidence to the contrary, regardless of corroboration), and the lawyerly maxim 'Frame the question, win the argument."
They have unfortunately gone beyond discussion of different opinions & priorities, into their one-track 'proof mode'. On their topic, you will find you are no longer in a true discussion.
The tricks and traps of this method are quite natural, even for intelligent analysts. We are all human. On a site such as this, it's best to understand that trap...even as it applies to yourself.