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. |
Thunder Below is written by Captain Fluckey, based on his ship contact logs, which consolidate several sources (different officers making the entries), hundreds of independent sighting incidents over an extended length of time at a wide variety of geographic datum points
. As source material, it must be considered superior to a secondary source, which is often one person reaching a conclusion, then seeking data to "prove" his point after the fact.
You seem to imply that fact is determined by merely counting opinions, with all opinions equally valid. On that basis, Britain doesn't exist, as most Americans can't find it on the map!:rotfl: Of course the United States does not exist because most Americans can't find that on a map either. I would maintain that the existence of Britain or the United States is not subject to opinion. Certainly some evaluation of the likelyhood that a given source is credible should be part of the historical process. Otherwise the result is pure madness.