Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale
The interpretation comes in two forms that I can think of offhand:
1. In inferring the links between data that is inevitably incomplete (much as an archaeologist ‘reconstructs’ a broken vase or a mosaic, drawing on the pieces they have and on their accumulated knowledge of similar objects). Bridging the gaps, in other words.
2. Putting forward a hypothesis consistent with all the available data — scientific method.
The point in either case is that you do not pretend to certainty but acknowledge openly what you are doing, so that others may assess the evidence and come to their own conclusions.
Historians do not simply amass facts, they also try to find meaning in them.
|
Nick:
You say interpretation is inferring the links between data that is incomplete. I call that 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse'. To give you an example from my own legal training: One cannot impute into a legal document something that is not there. In other words, one CANNOT infer any links where there is a complete lacuna in the first place.
Your point 2 - oh jeez, not this crap about a 'scientific' method again. Pray teach me, after 45 years of research and writing, where I have gone wrong in never deliberately or otherwise applying a scientifi method.
Your last paragraph is true in part, but to 'try to find meaning' in facts is flawed, for the simple reasoon that one does not need to find a meaning with a lot of facts. One does not need to find a meaning to the attacks on Manston, for example. The Germans were trying to bomb the place into oblivion. No need to search for the 'why', or 'meaning' - it's as plain as the nose on your face.