In "The Killing of History", Windschuttle offers a devastating expose of attempts to substitute radically chic theorizing for real knowledge about the past. The result is revolutionary and unprecedented: contemporary historians are increasingly obscuring the facts on which truth about the past is built. Windschuttle offers a devastating expose of these developments. This fascinating narrative leads us into a series of case histories that demonstrate how radical theory has attempted to replace the learning of traditional history with its own political agenda. Windschuttle's book is a courageous effort to engage the forces of theory and post-structuralism that are destroying history as an area of interest to those outside academia's ivory tower / padded cell. Besides taking on those who would deny the value of empirical history, Windschuttle deconstructs the decontsructionists. Whilst the work of any human is always open to improvement, Keith Windschuttlle deserves the garlands and praise of students throughout the world - students who have had to bite their lips whilst the noble pursuit of historical truth has been perverted into yet another turgid, theoretical social science. Great Stuff. G A F Connolly The killing of History first impresses the reader by the erudition of its author. Numerous and various researches are quoted, philosophical works resumed, schools of thoughts presented. Conducting his plea, the author first reviews in each chapter a major research belonging to the perspective he aims at criticising. His review appears frequently "objective" and the author seems to have had the ambition (at least for most of the chapters) to review the object of his critics adopting a neutral perspective. Then he proposes his comments trying to convince the reader that the traditional understanding of history or science has nothing to learn from the recent developments in philosophy of science. Windschuttle regularly fails in his attempt to rally all readers to his cause, mainly by the fact that he does not adopt the arguments of his opponents in order to criticise them (from the inside), in order to provide deconstructive critics. To that extent, Windschuttle does not further the debate, does not radically change it but rather offers more arguments to support his position, without breaking the legitimacy of his opponents. The killing of History may not further the debate, however, it is an impressive review of the various tendencies influencing not only history but the current reflection on knowledge and the scientific discourse in diverse disciplines.