VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Stephan A. Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 4 May 2008 15:35:28 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
Neiman's analysis was apposite to the data with which he was able to  
work. A critic might say that the data was incomplete or problematic  
and could not yield a definitive answer, and I thought his qualifiers  
made it pretty clear he understood that.

-- Stephan

On 4 May 2008, at 15:20, Jurretta Heckscher wrote:

> On May 4, 2008, at 12:47 PM, S. Corneliussen wrote:
>>
>>
>> True, the misreporting of valid DNA evidence and the outright  
>> misuse of statistical science originated among people representing  
>> science, not the history profession, though credulous historians  
>> unskeptically accepted the statistical stuff.
>>
>>
> Mr. Corneliussen, I assume that your allusion to the use (or  
> misuse) of statistical science refers to the article by Fraser D.  
> Neiman, Director of Archaeology at Monticello, that appeared in the  
> William and Mary Quarterly circa 2000?  As I recall, it applied  
> statistical analysis to the probable dates of SH's conceptions and  
> the known dates of TJ's presence at Monticello to demonstrate the  
> extreme improbability that anyone else was the father of her children.
>
> This did not, of course, absolutely rule out the paternity of some  
> other man whose presence at Monticello invariably correlated with  
> TJ's.  And Dr. Neiman is of course an archaeologist (and a very  
> good one), not a statistician.  However, along with the DNA  
> analysis, his statistically-based conclusion is indeed the other  
> piece of scientific--as opposed to traditionally historical-- 
> research that many historians, myself included, have found compelling.
>
> I am probably not alone among such historians in lacking the  
> statistical training to evaluate Dr. Neiman's study as science.  If  
> his study is indeed, in your opinion as a scientist, "outright  
> misuse of statistical science," could you possibly give us a brief  
> explanation in laymen's terms of why you believe this to be so?
>
> If you can, thanks very much.
>
> --Jurretta Heckscher
>
> ______________________________________
> 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US