Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Beale
How then do the courts work in the USA, because nothing that reaches us over here suggests that absolute and unassailable certainty is the criterion they invariably impose in reaching their judgements?
Knowledge is not confined to your reductionist model. We know things with varying degrees of certainty. We constantly form working hypotheses which we use until new information requires their rejection or modification. If you demand absolute certainty at all times and in all things, what history would we have left? The job of the historian is to present hypotheses while making clear their basis and the limitations of his/her knowledge so that others can test those claims against the cited evidence or factor in new information.
As for researching among millions of declassified intelligence documents, what do you think I've been doing with most of my spare time for the last 40 years?
|
Sorry Nick: bollocks! The 'academic historian' loves that kind of shizz!
The true historian presents the known facts (which are not negotiable), and the variables for the reader to consider. One doesn't waste time delving into hypotheses. Why did 264 (Defiant) Squadron claim 39 Luftwaffe fighters on 29th May 1940?; why did RAF fighters claim so many Stukas on 16th & 18th August 1940 (massive overclaiming on both days)?; why did ZG 26 claim over 50 RAF fighters in one day? There are variables to each of those points, and there is no answer...