To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9272
9271  |  9273
Subject: 
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:44:41 GMT
Viewed: 
636 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Arnold Staniczek writes:
History is entirely about interpret-
   ation; there is no such thing as an objective fact in history,
   only prevailing interpretations based on the values and understandings
   of the historian

Hm, let's see: Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S. Is this an objective historical fact or not?

   We makes certain assumptions about its meaning.  We (at least the
   Americans) will all understand these because we're in the same
   rhetorical system.  But why did you choose Ford?  What is the
   context of the statement, both here and in terms of its apparent
   content?  The fact is, in a sense, still subjective.  At its
   basest level it is true, but it has a context and a method of
   employment that render it subjective.  Within the selection and
   display of such a statement, all sorts of subjectivities are
   encoded.  And that's even before I get to Derrida and the idea
   of what image forms in our minds when we hear a statement! (I
   always, always, *always* see that Simpsons episode..."Do you
   like beer, Homer?")

   It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just "is".  Sometimes the
   encoded values are more obvious than others--the more obvious we
   tend to call "propaganda," but the line is extremely thin.  I do
   read histories written in the 1920s that are now extremely opaque
   with value-laden, though "factual", statements that were entirely
   transparent at the time they were written.

   best,

   LFB



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
 
Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: G8CJyH.BCq@lugnet.com... (...) But don't you differentiate between the fact as such and the assumptions and conclusions you draw from it? To my understanding, THERE ARE objective facts (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
 
(...) Hm, let's see: Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S. Is this an objective historical fact or not? Am I missing something? Arnold (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

95 Messages in This Thread:





































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR