[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Removals from the list
I whole heartedly agree with this type of discussion etc. I dis-
agreed with the way you said it. To often academia forgets though that the
lay person can think as well as the next person but just doesn't have the
education. To often the academic world looks down their noses at us who are
not a member of the elite so to speak. This is the way in which I took what
you wrote and this is what I was disagreeing with. You probably didn't mean
it that way, but that is how I took it.
I was not upset, just seeking clarification.
From: Joe Erkes [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Removals from the list
Let me try explaining my point again... maybe I can make it
The Sinclair historical legacy is broad and deep, consisting of some
most reasonable people can agree on, some "facts" that are shaky (as
unproved), and some "facts" that are probably not facts at all. It
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
difference, we can be criticized for promulgating myths and fables,
baby (the truth) will go out with the bath water.
Academics traditionally handle this situation by asserting
what they believe to be true. Other academics who disagree with
advance their own differing hypotheses. These disputes are resolved
down these hypotheses into clear distinctions which are testable.
science business, typically experiments are carried out to settle
disputes. In the history business, he who can find the most
sources buttressing his ideas usually wins. The rest of the
weighs the evidence presented and declares that one hypothesis is
the other. It's not personal; it's simply the way disputes are
Often those who "lose", while admitting publicly that their
hypothesis is better, will go off and search for better proofs that
reverse the community viewpoint. Although ugly personal
occur, most combatants don't take it personally, because to do so
truth seeking process.
Regarding the "Henry as Prince" hypothesis, Ian of Noss and Sinclair
differing hypotheses. Although Sinclair systematically demolished
all of Ian's
arguments, Ian never acknowledged that Sinclair's hypothesis was
Finally, Sinclair boiled Ian's arguments down to the simple "fill in
blanks" assertion that "Henry was a prince because _______" in an
bring closure to the issue.
It wasn't not personal... it wasn't an insult... it was simply an
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
glossing over differences may minimize conflict, but it ensures that
understanding of "the truth" will forever stay muddy.
Not so long ago most thought we lived on a flat earth. A handful of
thinkers suggested that we lived on a globe. The "academics" of the
contrasted these hypotheses, boiled them down to testable elements,
discovered that the "flat earth" hypothesis did not account for as
indisputable facts as the "earth is round" hypothesis. Most
accepted that the earth was round, but some diehards stayed with
beliefs*.... and got marginalized and labeled as pinheads for their
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
> lesson of respect nor do we lay people. I have found that
> disagreement can come for many sources. It has to do with how one
> 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