Author: chandler yergin
Date: 15:13:31 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 17:09:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Nonsense! > That is what you are missing. No, you are missing it. >"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. Nor should there be. The "totality" of the evidence is what should determine a verdict. Until all the evidence is in, conclusions should not be drawn. That is my opinon and I stick with it.
This page took 0.03 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.