On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Steven T. Corneliussen wrote:

> Mainly concerning scientific evidence in the Hemings-TJ discussion,  
> here
> are responses to four selected brief passages from Lyle Browning's  
> recent
> postings, in one case also involving Kevin Hardwick's postings. (And
> because of the volatility of the general topic, I'll repeat my usual
> disclaimer: I'm a paternity agnostic.)
>
> 1. Mr. Browning wrote: "Let the fireworks begin."
Written tongue in cheek, but hoping for the type you describe rather  
than the flame wars that we've had. But knowing full well that while I  
know what I meant, or should, others will interpret it as they wish;)
>
>
> Fireworks are fine, in my view, if you mean colorfully interesting and
> informative discussion -- or even if you don't mean "colorfully."  
> But I
> agree with those who surely worried that this thread would lead to  
> another
> round of shouting, name-calling, undignified snideness, and the  
> pointless
> repetition of old paternity-belief and paternity-disbelief arguments.
> (Though I must say, I wish everybody would at least acknowledge,  
> whether
> or not they go on to respect the distinction, that oral tradition  
> handed
> down through generations is simply not the same as oral history.)
>
> 2. Mr. Browning wrote: "Historians without scientific backgrounds  
> tend to
> leap on the headline, and do not understand the limitations or  
> nuances of
> the  technique and use that to bolster their arguments. That is both  
> bad
> science and bad history."
>
> My own study of what I call Hemings-Jefferson science abuse has led  
> me to
> believe that certain historians have been culpably credulous about  
> Fraser
> Neiman's statistical study of the apparent coincidences between Sally
> Hemings's conceptions and TJ's sporadic presences at Monticello. (More
> about that if anybody wants to discuss it -- and please note that  
> I'm not
> attacking the obvious qualitative evidentiary value of the apparent
> coincidences; I'm talking about bogus quantification purporting to be
> science.)
Absolutely agreed.
>
>
> But it also seems to me that historians have generally _not_  
> misunderstood
> or misused the DNA evidence.
Generally that is true, but there are those who persist in writing  
that TJ fathered at least 1 to possibly 7 children. My simple point  
was that the incorrect interpretation will persist if people keep  
repeating it. I agree with your premise that journalists are the worst  
offenders.

> Instead -- and here I agree with something
> that I think Mr. Browning is saying -- it has been mainly  
> journalists who
> have committed DNA science errors. It's true that you can find  
> isolated
> cases of historians misusing the DNA evidence, sometimes with an  
> apparent
> possibility that it's more a case of carelessness of phrasing than  
> error
> of understanding. More often, it seems to me, the problem is a  
> blurring of
> the difference between molecular findings and the historical
> interpretation of molecular findings. But my own sense is that --  
> unlike
> deadline-harried, sensation-seeking journalists -- historians writing
> about Hemings-TJ have generally taken the time to understand what  
> the DNA
> proved and what it didn't prove.
Again, generally this appears to be true, but the others seem to get a  
disproportionate amount of air time.
>
>
> (A big exception is the assertion that the DNA disproved the Carr
> paternity possibility. In fact -- and here I'm repeating myself,  
> though I
> think it's necessary in the circs -- the DNA disproved the Carr  
> paternity
> possibility only for the case of Eston Hemings. Lawyer-historians R.  
> B.
> Bernstein and Annette Gordon-Reed, if they have been quoted  
> accurately in
> news reports, have recently committed this DNA evidence error.)
>
> The brief passage quoted above from Mr. Browning, with its reference  
> to
> historians "without scientific backgrounds," made me look back to  
> find the
> Sept. 25 posting in which Mr. Browning mentioned a concern about
> "non-scientific types writing about science." Jeffersonians  
> participating
> in this forum will recognize that as an enormous Jeffersonian heresy,
> though it's commonly committed in our non-Jeffersonian age with our  
> "two
> cultures" chasm between science and the rest of life. Of course
> nonscientists may and should write about science. Despite the "two
> cultures" blockage, science no more belongs to scientists than war  
> belongs
> to generals or law to lawyers.
I don't think science belongs to only scientists. What I object to is  
co-opting a fuzzy understanding of the results as "proof" of their  
previously held positions.
>
>
> In my view it's obviously true that if nonscientists don't  
> understand the
> equations of quantum chromodynamics, they should avoid commenting  
> about
> those equations. But if genetic scientists produce molecular findings
> bearing on a history question, and if those scientists then conflate  
> the
> authority of those molecular findings with the much lower authority  
> of the
> scientists' own observations about what the molecular findings may  
> mean,
> and if the editors of the world's leading science journal then  
> promulgate
> that blurry conflation not only in a misleading headline but in an
> outright false pair of prominent statements, it's the duty of  
> historians
> to sort it all out.
What has worked best for me is for historians and scientists to get  
together, write up what they know and agree with the entire work and  
co-publish. That is better than a non-scientist missing nuances that  
are critical. I've certainly read stuff on both sides that's cringe- 
making.
>
>
> And in my view, that's exactly what most historians mostly did when
> scientists at the journal Nature irreparably skewed worldwide
> understanding of the DNA scientists' report about perfectly  
> legitimate,
> but nondispositive, molecular findings.
>
> 3. Mr. Browning wrote: "Who the parent was is unknown but narrowed  
> to less
> than half a dozen Jeffersons ... ."
>
> Please forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this. It seems to me to be  
> saying
> that the radius of the circle of paternity candidates, measured in  
> men, is
> under six -- as well it might be in historical opinion or even in
> historical fact, but as it is not if the context is merely DNA  
> science.
My number was obtained from the historical side with TJ, Randolph and  
possibly some nephews. The DNA results cannot get there, agreed. I  
have also just begun reading your article in which you have at least 2  
dozen candidates. My bad. So let's do some archaeology and get the DNA  
circle widened.

Lyle Browning
>
>
>
> ______________________________________
> 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