[lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill

[Michael Dawson]

> Sure, people can do both; it's just depends on which question you
> want to answer. "Why does that doofus make that bogus claim
> time and again?"  --Analysis of motives is helpful.  "Is that
> claim bogus?" --Analysis of motives is irrelevant.
> 
> Miles

Not.  If you do historical research, inquiring into motives is often one of
the most powerful ways of answering the latter question.  I'm pretty sure
that's also true in a huge number of other scientific endeavors, including
psychotherapy.