RE: Removals from the list

["Kyler, Dana" <DKyler@abdick.com>]

Joe
	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.

Yours,
	Dana

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Joe Erkes [SMTP:erkesjoe@nycap.rr.com]
	Sent:	Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:31 AM
	To:	sinclair@quarterman.org
	Subject:	Re: Removals from the list

	Dana,

	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!

	With respect,

	Joe

	* 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.

sinclair@quarterman.org
http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html