= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tut comments on Common Errors in History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
Since you asked: for me it was disorganized and disorienting to follow. It starts off like you're looking for common errors in history, and then when you start your list, I can't tell if you're saying:
1) what you think are common errors, or
2) what the book claims are common errors, or
3) what general knowledge you have inferred from others' claim of error
or what.
Along the same lines, it's not clear what your bolded summaries are supposed to mean. What does, "the English are so very English" even mean? That they have English attribute X, where X is politeness, understatement, etc? That they're biased in favor of themselves? It doesn't get clearer by reading the passage.
Also, you give a few long lists in the middle of sentences which make it hard to follow to "get to the point", while not giving any information about the items in the list, as if there's some obvious inference I should be making just from the title of each item.
Finally, it's not clear what the general significance of your findings is, other than a chance for someone to get one specific book. It comes off as aimless and vague.
Sorry if I sound rude, but that's what I think.
He is giving his own summary/interpretation of the pamphlet. The things in the article are the takeway points that Phil came up with after reading "Common Errors in History". If you don't know what that is, please reread the first paragraph of the post.
I would have liked to see a link to the original mention/recommendation, or at least a little more context for the recommendation. "I bought a copy of Common Errors in History, which someone mentioned recently on LW." is not a very effective opening sentence for getting me to care about the ensuing post.
I couldn't find the original mention. It was in a discussion about Christopher Columbus and the common error of believing that people of his time believed the world was flat.
I'm inclined to think that if Google can't turn up the discussion using some searching for 'Columbus' or 'Common Errors in History' (as I've verified it does not appear to) then you may be mis-remembering the original source of the mention.