[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Removals from the list
Let me try explaining my point again... maybe I can make it clearer.
The Sinclair historical legacy is broad and deep, consisting of some facts that
most reasonable people can agree on, some "facts" that are shaky (as yet
unproved), and some "facts" that are probably not facts at all. It is very
much in our collective interest to be clear in our minds regarding what is a
confirmed fact, and what is unlikely to be true. If we do not understand the
difference, we can be criticized for promulgating myths and fables, and the
baby (the truth) will go out with the bath water.
Academics traditionally handle this situation by asserting hypotheses regarding
what they believe to be true. Other academics who disagree with them will
advance their own differing hypotheses. These disputes are resolved by boiling
down these hypotheses into clear distinctions which are testable. In the
science business, typically experiments are carried out to settle the
disputes. In the history business, he who can find the most credible original
sources buttressing his ideas usually wins. The rest of the academic community
weighs the evidence presented and declares that one hypothesis is better than
the other. It's not personal; it's simply the way disputes are resolved.
Often those who "lose", while admitting publicly that their opponents
hypothesis is better, will go off and search for better proofs that may
reverse the community viewpoint. Although ugly personal interactions sometimes
occur, most combatants don't take it personally, because to do so hurts the
truth seeking process.
Regarding the "Henry as Prince" hypothesis, Ian of Noss and Sinclair advanced
differing hypotheses. Although Sinclair systematically demolished all of Ian's
arguments, Ian never acknowledged that Sinclair's hypothesis was "better".
Finally, Sinclair boiled Ian's arguments down to the simple "fill in the
blanks" assertion that "Henry was a prince because _______" in an attempt to
bring closure to the issue.
It wasn't not personal... it wasn't an insult... it was simply an attempt to
get at the truth... a goal that we all ought to support. We need to be able to
disagree over very differing assertions without rancor. "Making nice" and
glossing over differences may minimize conflict, but it ensures that our
understanding of "the truth" will forever stay muddy.
Not so long ago most thought we lived on a flat earth. A handful of radical
thinkers suggested that we lived on a globe. The "academics" of the time
contrasted these hypotheses, boiled them down to testable elements, and
discovered that the "flat earth" hypothesis did not account for as many
indisputable facts as the "earth is round" hypothesis. Most eventually
accepted that the earth was round, but some diehards stayed with their
beliefs*.... and got marginalized and labeled as pinheads for their troubles.
Not exactly what we want for the "Prince" Henry story!
* some continue to do so even today!
"Kyler, Dana" wrote:
> In my own personal world view I find that academia does not always learn the
> lesson of respect nor do we lay people. I have found that respectful
> disagreement can come for many sources. It has to do with how one is raised
> as opposed to how learned one is.
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html