The actual facts and history behind this documentary are unfortunately polluted by Lipscomb's unsubstantiated opinions and inconsistent interpretations. Rather than present an objective, or at least, supported view of the events, Lipscomb relies on her imagination treating "history" as "historical fan-fiction."
For example, Lipscomb would have you believe the entire series of events was initiated by one man's deranged sexual proclivities."I don't think Seaton's actions had much to do with witch hunting," she says. "I think his motives were sexual." She continues, "perhaps he lusted after her for a long time and felt that, as master, he had a right to have her." She then argues, "it doesn't take a huge leap" to believe he had an "obsession" with her. Yet, no evidence exists to support this interpretation. What about the dozens of women AND men who were tortured in similar fashion by Courts and Kings over the following years? Were their actions sexual, too, or just this one man's and why?
To think, less than a year before this aired, Lipscomb published an article promoting a "rigorous code of professional practice" for historians.
The first rule? "Use evidence to support your interpretation." Other gems include, "Do not allow assertions to move from 'possibly' to 'probably'" and "Do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky." She also admonishes historians from giving credence to unsubstantiated claims and not to promote ideas without first considering the evidence against them (or lack of evidence for them).
Truly embarrassing. With regard to her credibility as a historian, Lipscomb's work in this documentary is on par with "Ancient Aliens."
If you would like to learn about the topic, Wikipedia, of all things, provides a more objective view. Or you are welcome to read many of the fine books on the subject.
For example, Lipscomb would have you believe the entire series of events was initiated by one man's deranged sexual proclivities."I don't think Seaton's actions had much to do with witch hunting," she says. "I think his motives were sexual." She continues, "perhaps he lusted after her for a long time and felt that, as master, he had a right to have her." She then argues, "it doesn't take a huge leap" to believe he had an "obsession" with her. Yet, no evidence exists to support this interpretation. What about the dozens of women AND men who were tortured in similar fashion by Courts and Kings over the following years? Were their actions sexual, too, or just this one man's and why?
To think, less than a year before this aired, Lipscomb published an article promoting a "rigorous code of professional practice" for historians.
The first rule? "Use evidence to support your interpretation." Other gems include, "Do not allow assertions to move from 'possibly' to 'probably'" and "Do not build more elaborate layers of interpretation on a foundation that is rocky." She also admonishes historians from giving credence to unsubstantiated claims and not to promote ideas without first considering the evidence against them (or lack of evidence for them).
Truly embarrassing. With regard to her credibility as a historian, Lipscomb's work in this documentary is on par with "Ancient Aliens."
If you would like to learn about the topic, Wikipedia, of all things, provides a more objective view. Or you are welcome to read many of the fine books on the subject.