08-12-2020, 08:54 AM
(08-11-2020, 08:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: That sounds a lot more like religion than historical analysis.
I have noted that some of the contributors of the T4T site are conservative and into violence. This infatuation with violence is one of the things that the theory attracts. If S&H took most of their observations from a violent age, is it surprising that it attracts people with a violent world view?
On the other hand, many of the more progressive contributors are more sensitive to the changes in Information Age has brought. They have noticed that the theory isn’t a good predictor anymore, and have come to doubt the validity of the theory in its entirety.
I see some of the theory as valid still, but it is one of many valid things. Resolving conflicts between theories is a good way of pruning the invalid. A conflict between two theories is a solid clue that at least one of the theories has a problem. I don’t have a pseudo religious belief that any theory can stand forever unchanged, but I will keep what they observed of the old time if it is still repeating in the new. Resolving a conflict is done by comparing with the real world. Which theory if either is the accurate predictor?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
