Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:36:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
766 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Arnold Staniczek writes:
> Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: G8CJyH.BCq@lugnet.com...
> > 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 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 in history (see above).
There are two levels of mediation: That of the writer, and that
of the reader. You and I may agree that Ford being President
constitutes and objective fact because our reading (or your
writing and my reading) are the same, or similar enough. I
guess that by taking the "no objective facts" tack, I'm being
too deconstructionist--there are objective realities, but we
never have complete access to them; some truths are, to quote
the pundits, truer than others. For example, is "Gerald R.
Ford was 38th President of the United States between the resignation
of Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and the accession of James F. Carter
on 20 January 1976" truer than, less true than, or equally true to
"Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S."? It offers up very
different levels of information and, thus, interpretation--it
closes off possible avenues of uncertainty.
This level of historical self-doubt is only really necessary
if you're a professional historian (and even then it's very
frustrating and even infuriating). But it underscores
the premise that arranging data and coming to conclusions about
history is more an art than a science--it's about composition
and rhetoric as much as it is about "facts and figures". (Oh,
and an awful lot of loaded scare-quotes. :) )
I'll have to dig up the citation of an excellent article on
objective versus subjective reality and the existence of historical
facts--only problem being my copy is interred with the rest of my
papers back in NJ. :(
best,
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
