Re: [Rollei] Re: History

["Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark  >
To: <rollei  
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: History


> >
> >    There is a line somewhere in _War and Peace_ to the
> > point that memories of war are so distorted by the
> > conditions of observation that they are never true no
matter
> > how honest the observer is trying to be. I think its
also
> > well to remember that in law eye witness testimony is
> > considered less reliable than other direct evidence, or
even
> > some circumstantial evidence, despite the popular idea
that
> > its the best evidence. The whole method of scientific
> > research is based on the idea that direct observation is
> > often flawed.
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk  
>
>
>
> History ain't science though.
> I believe the scientific method might work for other
things than science.
> But not all things.
> And if a "Historian" had read a whole lot of books about
AN EVENT and then
> writes a book about it then that¹s one thing. With lots of
foot notes. And
> references. Little numbers at the bottom of the page...
> But I was taught that you go to the source if you can. (in
a history class)
> Read a book written by a guy that was there. Or gal.
> I've lived by that rule ever since!!!!
>
> THAT'S HEARSAY!!!
>     I DO believe what Perry Mason says.
> Kind of like short for HERESY.
> Sounds like a legal method cross over to me. (from history
to legal)
>
> But I DO believe in the germ theory!!!
>
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
>
>
     Its all very well to read eye witness accounts of
historical events but they also have errors. Errors of
observation, of memory, of delibrate censoring of events for
one reason or another. Also, do not discount the possibility
that the witness may have misunderstood what he/she was
witnessing. It is important, I think vital, to go back to
original sources when they have been quoted by a later
writer. Sometimes the later writer has gotten it wrong or
left something important out, or even made it up.
    Sometimes so-called revisionist history is based on new
material not available to earlier researchers. Depending on
the nature of the evidence found it may well change the idea
of what exactly happened at some past event substantially.
    Being very interested in history of all sorts myself
I've learned to be skeptical and to have contempt for poor
scholarship.

- ---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk  

------------------------------