PhilGoetz comments on Common Errors in History - Less Wrong

4 Post author: PhilGoetz 09 February 2010 07:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (47)

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 09 February 2010 09:04:15PM *  1 point [-]

Thank you for replying, but I was quite clear at every point on whether I was reporting things that are in the book, or my interpretation of them.

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.

I disagree with the notion taught in English composition that every composition must have a "general significance". I find essays are often ruined, or at least needlessly lengthened, by the author trying to tie them up neatly, when what is usually of value to me is the separate pieces of data. I think what you object to is actually the un-vague way that it spends all its time listing specifics, rather than vaguely unifying and summarizing.

Comment author: SilasBarta 09 February 2010 09:24:44PM 0 points [-]

I disagree with the notion taught in English composition that every composition must have a "general significance".

That's a Less Wrong rule, not one from English composition. And it doesn't mean you have to force-fit each point into supporting a central thesis, just that you should make clear what the signficance of your post is in the context of this site.

think what you object to is actually the un-vague way that it spends all its time listing specifics, rather than vaguely unifying and summarizing.

If each part were clear, I wouldn't have to rely on later passages to disambiguate meaning. See my example here.

(Okay, no the meta-talk has exceede the post length ... bad sign.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 09 February 2010 09:14:46PM *  0 points [-]

Example:

I tried to find some pattern to the "common errors" listed, but this is the best I could do:

English students in the mid-20th century learned a lot of history.

This booklet is full of statements such as, "The frequent use of the title of Prince of Wales for the native princes before Llywelyn the Last is incorrect... The title of Prince of Wales was adopted only... about 1258,"

This can be red as, "It is an error that English students learned a lot of history, because they mistakenly believe that pre-Llywelyn princes had the title Prince of Wales."

Is that what you meant?

If not, then you can understand why I would have to read further to get your meaning, but by then the post says: "The English are so very English. [Textbooks are biased in favor of the home country. That wouldn't be tolerated in England. In LLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOONNNN NNNNNNNG LIST, the book claims the English are unfairly blamed.]"

And that doesn't help much.

Comment author: thomblake 09 February 2010 09:17:30PM 3 points [-]

Your very long "LONG" is ugly and will likely screw up some people's rendering of the page.

Comment author: SilasBarta 09 February 2010 09:20:11PM 1 point [-]

I put some spaces in. Is it okay now? (It's supposed to be ugly to give the effect of having to skip across a long list to get to the sentence's predicate, but I don't want it messing up rendering.)

Comment author: MrHen 09 February 2010 09:21:27PM 1 point [-]

Yeah, it's good now.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 09 February 2010 09:29:53PM 0 points [-]

This can be red as, "It is an error that English students learned a lot of history, because they mistakenly believe that pre-Llywelyn princes had the title Prince of Wales."

That's a misinterpretation that hadn't occurred to me. Fixed.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit