Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrbeast
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. |
What you were taught in University is purely arbitrary. In some areas of life, an eyewitness is considered more valid.
And talking about history and using the word proof is strange indeed. This isn't mathematics we're discussing.
__________________
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
-- Chesterton
Last edited by jazman; 12-11-07 at 10:01 AM.
|