Windshuttle makes a living out of attacking the veracity of other people's research, not just history but economics as well.
I listened to a radio debate where he described his findings of flawed references and concocted evidence in respect of other people's books on the treatment of aborigines. Some woman then took the little bugger apart bit by bit, making a convincing case that Windshuttle has an axe to grind against the academic establishment and that flawed research does not disprove that aborigines were massacred, quite the contrary. Windshuttle uses official police reports as his evidence and ignores the fact that aboriginal evidence is by oral tradition hence hard to verify.
The thing he has proven is that academics should not reference flaky evidence or concocted evidence to support what they are convinced occurred, because their whole historical record can be discredited by pedants like Windshuttle picking away at loose threads.
Little johnnie reportedly loves Windshuttle's "work".
