Thank you very much for the link, much appreciated!

Hi Michael,

You wrote:

"Yes, but just like art historians, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually understand how to create something new"

Historians who unearth new, previously unknown information from primary sources and integrate it into the current understanding of their field have created something new. Actually, that's a prerequisite for gaining a PhD.

In terms of reinterpreting old material, something that historians of classical antiquity are forced to spend much of their time doing ( most ancient sources are lost, rediscoveries are very rare) judging something as " new" would depend at the quality of their synthesis, should they attempt one.

Historians are, at the graduate level at least, trained to evaluate information and to put things in a larger context.

Yes, but just like art historians, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually understand how to create something new. My computer can evaluate information and put things into a larger context, while at the same time creating a perfect duplicate of the Mona Lisa, but it still doesn't know how to create anything new.

Isn't that a bit like saying that if you study art history long enough, you'll be a good painter?

How so?

Historians are, at the graduate level at least, trained to evaluate information and to put things in a larger context.