Following my item on Ron Brunton’s review of Windschuttle, I got a very nice email from Ron, who turns out to be a reader of this blog, though, not surprisingly, he disagrees with me on a number of issues. He enclosed a complete copy of his article. I’ll quote another passage with which I’m in (almost) complete agreement

For instance, Lyndall Ryan, who receives the heaviest battering in the book, wrote an article for The Australian which could be read as a collective suicide note for her profession. She did not contest Windschuttle’s allegations of fact against her, and even admitted to a few `minor errors’ in her footnotes. But she had her `truth’, Windschuttle had his, and history was a `complex terrain in which multiple stories and interpretations are represented’.

Fine, but if there is no way of deciding between such strikingly different accounts, why do we need university departments of history? Perhaps the public interest would be better served by closing them down and using the money to establish schools of astrology or feng shui.

My main concern with the last suggestion is that one of our ‘enterprising’ Vice-Chancellors will take it seriously. I’m sure there’s a big unmet demand for degrees in feng shui.

And I should note that Ryan seems to have realised the futility of this line – her letter to the Australian attacking Windschuttle’s misquotation of her work didn’t seem to leave any room for ‘multiple truths’. Hopefully she will follow up with a more substantive response giving a clear statement of the basis for the claims criticised by Windschuttle.

Update The passage in Ryan’s article that upset me most was not the one quoted in full by Brunton, but the one he alluded to, which was also pounced on by Miranda Devine
“Two truths are told. Is only one ‘truth’ correct?”
Not to put it too bluntly, Yes. We are always fallible, and can never be certain of knowing the truth, but that doesn’t mean that there can be as many different truths as we like.
More generally, the piece as a whole was aptly described by Rob Corr as a ‘time-buyer’. I think it’s clear that if Ryan had access to her notes and could prove Windschuttle wrong, she wouldn’t have indulged in this kind of thing, which just played into his hands. I’m prepared to wait and see what she has to say – given the inaccuracies and selective presentation already pointed out by Bain Attwood and Henry Reynolds among others, I don’t see any reason to rely on Windschuttle’s assertions.

Further update All the comments threads are lively today, but this is probably the best. Out of a bunch of excellent contributions, pro and con, I’m most grateful to Rob Corr for putting something very close to my own views better than I could myself. For a thoughtful statement of the contrary view, read the thread then visit Gary Sauer-Thompson. And the renewal of the pomo debate has tempted its undefeated champion, Don Arthur, out of retirement, squaring off against the self-explanatory Derrida Derider. Last, but not least, one of the main participants in the debate, Cathie Clements, has offered some useful thoughts on truth and history. She has more to say here.