OK, looks like problem solved or someone is working on it. This post might be the only one where I can use a dancing bunny. Thanks for the bunny code Brian!
My sincere thanks (in alphabetical order) to:
David Isaacson
David Nishimura
Kim Sosin
Jon Veley
Greg "gweddig"
So now that discussion seems to taken a different turn, a few comments / questions. Sorry if a little long.
1.) I thought the Waterman ink blot myth was debunked on L&P around 2008 if not earlier. Since L&P is gone, I think the article has merit. Beats a hodge-podge of cut-n-paste posts I have in a 3 ring binder. Very well documented and an outstanding bit of scholorship by the authors.
2.) File under "No accoutin' for taste."
I like articles (with citations) about pen history-- esp. Waterman. If some don't-- that's cool. World would be a boring place if we all liked the same things.
For example, I'm not interested in articles about endless varieties of ink & catchy marketing names that border on a googolplex or Graham's Number. Who cares!
But just because I'm not interested in ink, doesn't mean I'd hate the guy writing about ink or think less of ink fanciers. To each his own.
So hopefully we can put up with one another.
3.) Open question about history. Not trolling the history dept.
Is history really a science? With a background in quantitative research I don't understand how it could be.
Can an Historian use a refutable hypothesis & quantitative analysis? Solomon 3 & 4 design? Proven reliable/consistent measure? Method(s) used in running the data?
I'm guessing that history must fall back on qualitative research. Suspect imo. Results can't be applied to the general population, or used to explain physical reality. I'm very skeptical of "story telling" with no null hypothesis.
"Nailing jello to a wall" is very well put!
***What are the safeguards for qualitative research in history? How does one spot cherry picking supporting evidence while conveniently ignoring disconfirmatory evidence?***
A good textbook on qualitative methods would be helpful if anyone has any suggestions.
4.) Blind Review:
I like Farmboy's idea. Wouldn't be necessary for all articles of course-- just the "scholarly" ones that might be controversial. I'd volunteer.
In closing, thanks for replies & hope everyone has a great week!
--Bruce
Edited by Pensee, 03 May 2015 - 11:42 PM.