Thread: New member.

Up to now my main interest has been history, but I agree with the views of CP Snow when he wrote about the dangerous gap between the Arts and the Sciences. I think he referred to the two cultures which had developed and altho' he made these comments some time ago I believe this is still the case in our society.
I am going to make a start by trying to understand the Theory of Relativity. I am confident this will not present too many problems!
I will remain, of course, very interested in history at an academic level. One of my chums once told me that I was a "revisionist" historian. I wish I knew what that meant but I think it was a compliment.

These days the dangerous gap seems to be between the politicians and the scientists. I know many artsy types who understand current scientific issues quite well, and know of many politicians who are clueless. And when your chum called you a revisionist historian I doubt it was meant as a compliment. It usually means you change the facts to fit your worldview.

But all that negativity aside, welcome!

Scotts are welcome here. :-)

I don't know if Snow's views on separations between humanities and sciences have much relevance anymore--at least in the US our anti-scientific politicians and willfully ignorant population that put them in office, aren't any more familiar with Shakespeare, Latin, philosophy, classical music or the other humanities than they are of science.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Scotts are welcome here. :-)

I don't know if Snow's views on separations between humanities and sciences have much relevance anymore--at least in the US our anti-scientific politicians and willfully ignorant population that put them in office, aren't any more familiar with Shakespeare, Latin, philosophy, classical music or the other humanities than they are of science.

I didn't think Snow was talking about those who have little knowledge of the humanities and the sciences. I thought he was referring to the gulf between those who were knowledgeable in one of these fields.
Are Lattvians welcome here:-
Hope I spelt that word correctly!

Originally Posted by Bunbury

And when your chum called you a revisionist historian I doubt it was meant as a compliment. It usually means you change the facts to fit your worldview.

But all that negativity aside, welcome!

I don't agree with your definition. I believe the term "revisionist historian" refers to a historian who does not agree with the consensus view on an historical issue. Of course this does not mean the "rebel" historian is necessarily correct!
A Cold War revisionist historian would lay most of the blame, for the Cold War, on the West and that is a point of view I would not agree with!