Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dantenoc
Careful... one anectdote, no matter how powerfull, cannot be considered as valid proof. To make statistical proof you need more data.
|
Ok I'm putting on my Beery hat here...
Cannot be considered valid proof? An account written by someone who was there at the time it happened isn't valid proof? Maybe what you're saying is that it may not have been the norm, and I can buy that, but you can't say it wasn't valid proof. A primary source recorded at the time it happened is about as valid as proof gets. |
Not neccesarily. I studied History (actually Politics and Modern History) at University and the first thing they taught us was all accounts of an event should be taken to be worth the same at face value. Just because an account was written by somebody there does not automatically make it more valid. The person making the account could be biased, have a faulty memory or was simply not in the right place to witness all relevant events. The fact that a piece of evidence is 'primary' is irrelevant. Without any other evidence to draw from one persons account can't be taken as reliable or proof.
Dantenoc is correct, the only way you can find out whether the amount of air conntacts in SH4 is accurate or authentic is to make a study of statistical evidence of the frequency with which US subs enountered enemy aircraft, how many times they where attacked, how effective attacks were etc etc.
Simply waving conflicting stories around as proof of one case of affairs or the other is no proof at all.
My own opinion is that, and I'm drawing this from my own faulty memory and the feel I've got from fairly limited reading
, US subs enountered on average a pretty large volume of enemy air contacts.