Question for Jurretta Hecksher
I owe, and am working to send, Jurretta Heckscher an answer about my
arguments concerning what has been called the statistical pillar in the
three-pillared paternity proof: historical evidence, DNA, and statistics.
Meanwhile, something in Ms. Heckscher's thoughtful admonishment of Mr.
Barger for his manners and zealous excesses has inspired a question from me
to her.
Ms. Hecksher, you wrote to Mr. Barger:
> You refer to other
> possible candidates for the paternity of SH's children as "suspects"
> (e.g., in messages of April 29 and May 3). A genealogist whose work you
> doubtless value discloses a similar outlook when she titles her book on
> the relationship "Jefferson Vindicated`" (it is difficult to believe that
> a book bearing such a title represents anything other than a sustained
> attempt to reach a foreordained conclusion, which is not how persuasive
> historical analysis is made).
But you also wrote that you are "viscerally disinclined to take seriously
the arguments of someone who deems [you] a priori guilty (sic) of bad
faith."
My question is: Have you actually read Cyndi Burton's _Jefferson
Vindicated_?
Maybe you have indeed read it. If so, I apologize sheepishly for challenging
you on this point, and I'll return meekly to preparing the answer that I owe
you about statistics -- except to say three more things:
* Though I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Barger says and with much in his
manner of saying it, I'll bet he does indeed value Cyndi's book, and so do
I. Reading _Jefferson Vindicated_ made me a whole lot less confident about
many of the paternity believers' arguments. In my view Cyndi's explorations
of primary sources have led to valuable contributions to new knowledge about
Hemings-TJ. I make my living working with physicists, and though I can
usually follow what they say, I have no hope of attaining their level of
knowledge. I feel the same way when I talk to Cyndi about Hemings-TJ, as I
have done regularly for several years now. I also believe that I know the
physicists well enough that I could tell if they were getting intellectually
careless. They never do, which is why I admire them. Same with Cyndi. Nobody
who cares about this controversy should fail to read her book.
* I don't believe, as I noted once before in this forum, that University of
Richmond history professor Woody Holton read _Jefferson Vindicated_ before
posting a book review about it at Amazon.com -- a book review in which he
nevertheless went so far as to tar Cyndi with an implied charge of white
supremacism. (I admonished him as you've now admonished Mr. Barger.)
* This whole episode, centered most recently on Mr. Barger's manners and
zealous excesses, reminds me that Henry Wiencek might be right to accentuate
the polarization by framing things as "Jefferson defenders" vs. "Hemings
partisans" instead of as something like paternity disbelievers vs. paternity
believers (though that's polarized too, I admit). Yes, Cyndi's book's title
goes against the principles you refer to, Ms. Hecksher, when you talk about
what "is not how persuasive historical analysis is made." But in this
controversy, I'm not sure I fault her for it as you might do. Maybe she was
only responding to a reality. Is this discussion really historical analysis,
or do _both_ sides actually make it the polarized fight that Mr. Wiencek's
chosen terms imply?
Thanks very much.
I remain,
A paternity agnostic,
Steven T. Corneliussen
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|