I have appreciated Professor Hardwick's postings -- the first was an essay,
really, and I thought a good one -- and I'm grateful that he has now
reiterated that there's an important distinction between what's proven
scientifically and what's interpreted historically.
Below he's answering Henry Wiencek's message that began "Corneliussen,
Hardwick, and Herb Barger all mention the possibility that a slave with the
Jefferson DNA could have fathered Sally Hemings's children." I believe it's
fair to say that -- or maybe I mean, to charge that -- I started, or
restarted, the Hemings-TJ discussion by answering Mr. Wiencek's original
message announcing the Jefferson discussion on BookTV. Before I get too
closely identified with what Mr. Wiencek calls Jefferson defense, I'd like
to reiterate something too:
Although I'm of course interested in the paternity Answer if anybody can
supply it, I myself remain a paternity agnostic. What I actually study in
this debate is not paternity theories but what I call Hemings-Jefferson
science abuse, of which there has been plenty.
It was not historians but people representing science itself who started the
misunderstandings about the DNA and who, in the matter of the conceptions
coincidences at Monticello, misused statistics to invoke the special
authority of science for what is only an unquantifiable historical
interpretation.
That makes Hemings-Jefferson science abuse all the more important, I
believe, to monitor and to oppose -- not just because the paternity question
is important, and not just because historical evidence requires respect even
when it also happens to be scientific, but also because the special
authority of science is important in public discussions generally. On
questions ranging from the food-energy-pollution tradeoffs in biofuel
production to the efficacy of pharmaceuticals, science's special authority
matters.
Scientific proof is of a different character than even the best historical
interpretation. In my view that distinction requires more respect than it
has sometimes received in the Hemings-TJ debate.
Thanks very much.
Steve Corneliussen
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
> Henry--
>
> I do not think it is *likely* that all of Heming's children were sired by
> a slave. I think it is *possible*. And I think it is sufficiently
> possible that we can never know the issue with anything approaching
> scientific certainty. There is room for reasonable doubt here, your
> arguments not-with-standing.
>
> There are some things we will not and can not know. This is one of them.
> The argument that we should infer from Martha Jefferson's silence that no
> slave with Jefferson DNA existed strikes me as circumstantial and partial.
> It is suggestive, but hardly conclusive--just like everything else in this
> mess.
>
> We do not have access to the information necessary to settle this matter
> conclusively. That is unfortunate, but it does not strike me as likely to
> change much, no matter how much I really want to know the answer.
> Skepticism is a healthy attitude to cultivate, in such matters. Seems so
> to me, anyway.
>
> All best,
> Kevin
> Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
> Department of History
> James Madison University
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
