Thanks very much, Mr. Kukla, especially for the encouragement about the 
essay. (In this case, I've left your note that I'm responding to 
undeleted at the bottom.)

But there's an important point to be made about a misunderstanding that 
I perceive as embedded in the following snippet from what you wrote. I 
believe this point confronts a good portion of the history profession 
and deserves a serious answer from both historians and scientists. (And, 
in case I need to add this: I believe the point is not justly 
categorizable as merely another example of tedious re-hashing of 
Hemings-TJ debate in this forum.) You wrote:
 > ... if you have Fraser Neiman's monte carlo computations in
 > mind, I think you'll find that most historians skimmed that part
 > of his WMQ piece . . . but what historians did find pertinent
 > was the 'raw data' - birth dates and computed conception
 > dates he presented.

Yes, of course, historians and others -- including me -- find the raw 
data of the conceptions coincidences pertinent. Without even applying 
statistical science _quantitatively_, those data are intriguing 
_qualitatively_. That thought goes back at least as far as Winthrop 
Jordan in 1968, which is why Professor Neiman cites Jordan in setting 
out this aim: to go beyond qualitative, humanities-style interpretation 
and achieve an outright quantitative, scientific conclusion -- a 
conclusion that will bring the special authority of science conclusively 
into the debate, helping to settle it.

Just as there's a crucial distinction between molecular findings and the 
historical interpretation of molecular findings, there's a crucial 
distinction between professing to interpret quantifiable data according 
to the laws of science and professing to interpret it only 
qualitatively. In both cases, the difference is the invocation of the 
special authority of science -- the very authority on which we rely 
concerning vaccine efficacy when there are autism worries, or concerning 
climate change, or concerning the effect of second-hand smoke, and so on.

If Nature's editors overstate the molecular findings, that's a misuse of 
that special authority. And if Dr. Neiman invokes the special authority 
of science for his quantifications, and if his quantifications are 
groundless, that's a misuse of that special authority too. In my view 
his quantifications are indeed groundless, precisely because conception 
dates are not computable in the sense that you (and he) refer to above, 
Mr. Kukla. Instead, conception dates involve a probability distribution 
-- which Dr. Neiman did not use. (Once again I thank my friend Bill 
Blackwelder, Fellow of the American Statistical Association, for that 
dispositive insight.)

And this is not a back-door attempt by me to continue the paternity 
debate. I'm an agnostic on that anyhow. Instead it's a question for the 
history profession at large, and also for science.

Jan Lewis, in her introduction to that William and Mary Quarterly 
post-DNA essay collection where Dr. Neiman’s report appeared, declared 
that when the statistical study is seen together with the DNA and 
historical evidence, it justifies belief in Neiman’s grand scientific 
claim of a scientific paternity proof. She was invoking the authority of 
statistical science, Mr. Kukla. She was not just asking for interesting 
conceptions-coincidences records to be appreciated qualitatively.

And then in 2003, R. B. Bernstein’s Thomas Jefferson appeared. Gordon S. 
Wood called it the best short Jefferson biography ever written. 
Bernstein echoed other scholars’ belief that solid proof of 
Hemings-Jefferson parenthood now exists, resting on one nonscientific 
and two scientific evidentiary “pillars”: historical, DNA, and 
statistical. He too was invoking the authority of statistical science, 
not just asking for interesting conceptions-coincidences records to be 
appreciated qualitatively.

To me, that poses an important question: Is a large part of the history 
profession (and the TJF) still promoting the Neiman study -- in other 
words, promoting not just qualitative surmises and judgments about the 
data, but a quantitative scientific claim about them -- as part of a 
paternity proof? If so, it remains my hope that independent scientists 
will convene a formal review of that work.

Again: if historians want to defray uncertainty by invoking the special 
authority of science, both they and any scientists who support them 
ought to be subjected to the normal scrutiny of scientific work. That 
has not happened (unless you count the informal scrutiny that I report 
about at TJscience.org). It ought to.

If you believe in fact-based argumentation, you can no longer just say, 
oh, we only mean that the data seem intriguing. Dr. Neiman elevated your 
claim, historians, and in some sense both your profession and the 
scientific one are responsible for it.

And that matters intrinsically, whether or not Sally Hemings and Thomas 
Jefferson were parents together.


Jon Kukla wrote:

>Dear Mr. Corneliussen,
>   I have read your essay at TJscience.org, and it deserves publication.
>Finding the right journal is always a challenge.  In the preface to a
>collection of his essays, J. H. Hexter commented that one of the
>chapters that I very much admire had been rejected by several journals as
>not being "top-drawer Hexter" - and he was certainly a first-rate historian.
>  And in regard to my statistical methods for word/page counts I acknowledge
>that your posts did comprise the smaller portion of the number I cited. My
>apologize if I gave offense - certainly none was intended.
>
>  That said, as I wrote you off-list in May 2008 when VA-HIST was embroiled
>in an earlier round of this recurring tempest:
>". . . In regard to your interest in the use of science and statistics, . .
>. if you have Fraser Nieman's monte carlo computations in mind, I think
>you'll find that most historians skimmed that part of his WMQ piece  . . .
>but what historians did find pertinent was the 'raw data' - birth dates and
>computed conception dates he presented."
>With all due respect, I still believe that is the case.
>
>All best wishes,
>  
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html