Henry Wiencek's message is very much to the point that what you think
about something governs how you discuss it, and how you discuss it
reveals what you believe.
 
For instance, H-South has been having a discussion about whether in
writing about Civil War history it is better to state that the Union
army occupied a place or liberated it; and just think how different our
public discourse would be if we talked about the Theory of Gravity and
the Law of Evolution. Both are explanations that scientists have
proposed, and there's no line to be drawn between what's a Theory and
what's a Law unless every single body accepts the Theory without
equivocation.
 
The DNA investigations and the science are interesting but never likely
to be conclusive. The circumstantial evidence is interesting and might
be conclusive to some people but not to other people. What we all have
to do is understand how and why we weigh the facts, such as they are,
and the interpretations, such as we think that we understand them, to
come to our own conclusions.
 
Brent Tarter
The Library of Virginia
[log in to unmask]
 
Please visit the Library of Virginia's Web site at
http://www.lva.virginia.gov
 

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