Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:09:08 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 16:49:48, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 26, 2005 at 16:39:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 26, 2005 at 16:01:57, chandler yergin wrote: >> >><big snip> >> >>> >>>You really don't believe this? >>>"No contemporary writer can give an accurate view of anything." >>> >>>"Only long after purported events as information is accumulated, and >>>the Historians assimilate the totality of the evidence, can a more accurate >>>picture of what really happpened be provided." >>> >>>"This is true for War.. Politics, Stock Market, Religious thought, >>>and 'Cultural' events." >>> >>>Then not only am I surprised, I'm appalled. >> >> >>The be appalled. I want to know what actually happened. Now what someone >>"thought" happened based on speculation, conjecture, rumor, fantasy, etc. >> >>History is a precisely recorded enumeration of events as they happen. With no >>"interpretation" or "justification" built in. What you are wanting is "not" >>history. >> >>I can figure out what happened by reading an accurate report about Little Big >>Horn, or the Alamo. I don't need any "interpretation" or "spin" thrown in to >>confuse things. Just an exact account of events. That is history. > >What are 'accurate reports' without the totality of the evidence, and all >viewpoints considered? > >Would you want to be on a Jury deciding life & death, without considering all >the evidence. > >I don't think so. >If so.. I wouldn't want you on my Jury.. regardless od what I was indicted for. > >I can't seriously you believe what you are saying Bob. There are no "viewpoints" in history. That is what you are missing. "viewpoints" are opinion. There is no opinion in history. History is just a factual recording of events as they take place, no opinion, no speculation, no nothing. A video-tape of an automobile wreck is a perfect example. I don't want _your_ opinion as to who was at fault, I want accurately recorded data that I can use to make up my own mind about what I think about the event... Your jury analogy is _not_ valid. Evidence is factual only. Which is historical in content. I don't care what you think, what you thought you saw, what you conjecture happened, etc. As a jurist (and yes I have served multiple times) I care only about facts. That is what a jury does, "finding facts". No room for "opinion" or anything else in the jury room.
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.