My opinions... (01)
On 5/26/2012 12:17 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Rich,
>
> You've got it backwards. Statements don't imply facts.
>
> Facts, by definition, are aspects of reality -- past or present.
> Statements that correspond with facts are true. There are some
> that only have a partial or approximate correspondence. Those
> are partly true.
>
> That is just a neutral summary about English usage.
The problem arises when people agree on a statement, "The chameleon is
red". And then they state that it is a fact that chameleons are red
without qualifying that that they can be other colors. Assuming the role
of authority is troublesome in this case. We can argue that this is an
error in logic or we can argue that this is an error in professionalism.
> RC
>> This is a circular argument. First you assert that you believe
>> there are such things as actual historical “truths” implying “facts”
> First, there are statements about events in the past. They are,
> by definition, historical statements. Unless you happen to be
> some sort of alien being, we can safely assume that you were
> born some time during the 20th century. A statement about that
> event would be a historical statement.
>
> If you happen to have a birth certificate, the data recorded on
> it can be mapped to a several historical sentences that are
> probably true. These observations are sufficient to justify
> the claim that historical truths exist.
>
> JFS
>> The following claim is at the level of a joke on a late-night talk show:
>>
>> "History is the lie that historians agree on."
>>
>> It has enough appearance of truth to get a laugh from the audience.
> RC
>> None of the above is factual; it is all your opinion
> That is certainly true. In my opinion, the quoted statement is
> what is technically known as a "cheap shot". It is deliberate
> exaggeration that denigrates an entire profession. I cannot
> imagine that anyone would take it seriously as anything but
> a deliberate exaggeration.
Maybe a cheap shot, but the more recent interest in historicity
indicates that there have been personal interests affecting professional
work. I take it as a cautionary tale. Without the observation that
historians' work can be flawed we would not have the ability to model
some historical reporting. That is my opinion. There is abundant
material available to justify it. Try Google. John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config
Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (03)
|