Ray--
A small and I hope useful clarification: sometimes people draw false, erroneous, or unwarranted conclusions from facts. It seems to me that when something of that sort happens, we can usefully label it "an error of interpretation."
For example, in the aftermath of the Hemings DNA testing, we know with reasonable certitude that someone descended from Thomas Jefferson's grand-father had sex with Sally Hemings, and fathered at least one of her children. Some observers have concluded from the "fact" produced by the DNA tests (itself the result of a fairly complex scientific process) that the father of most of Hemings' children was Thomas Jefferson. And yet, the group of potential fathers in the group of men descended from Thomas Jefferson's grand-father is considerably more extensive than just Thomas Jefferson (and moreover, we can not say with any certitude just how many persons belong to that group, since it is likely that some of the persons in that group were enslaved). So to draw the conclusion that we have proof positive of Jefferson's paternity from the DNA data is an error of interpretation. That is not what the facts of the DNA testing permit us logically to conclude.
Talk about "error of interpretation" may seem to imply a kind of arbitrariness that is appropriate for discussion of matters of opinion, and that is not connoted when we talk about "facts." But, at least so it seems to me, it is entirely reasonable to talk about sound inferences from data and poor ones, as the example I give above shows. I don't believe that the kind of error I am talking about here is quite the same thing as is present in unbounded discussion of opinion. And yet I would be loathe to exclude it from the category of "errors of interpretation."
All best wishes, as always,
Kevin
___________________________
Kevin R. Hardwick
Associate Professor
Department of History, MSC 8001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
________________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Walter Waddell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 12191716Z12 Re: Wikipedia
I am of the opinion that no one owns a fact. A fact stands on its own.
“no one is professionally accountable for any errors of fact or
interpretation.”
“or interpretation.” I am the opinion that therein lies the great “wrestle”
in using resources and engaging in the exchanges on this site. I am of the
opinion that except in language usage (literally), black and white “errors”
are the exception not the rule - and the debate or the exploration of our
perception of subjects of Virginia history is largely “unbounded”. And
strongly argued as it should be.
No one owns a fact. A fact stands on its own. (Literally).
______________________________________
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
|
