On the subject of objectivity and reliability of 'facts':
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Howard
That's all very well, but if the author doesn't make it clear that this is his or her personal interpretation of the evidence to hand, what the author says is accepted by many readers as undisputed fact.
|
I could not agree more with you and, to my mind, this should always be made clear by the author from the outset. There are, of course, good and bad writers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Howard
I would prefer the author to spell out the different accounts he or she received during the research and let the reader decide which is the true version of events.
|
From my conversation with Christopher Balfour on this problem I gather that this is what he has had to do on many occasions when definitive evidence is no longer extant and the accounts are contradictory.
In addition to Kevin's suggestion, I think the interpretation of the author has a part to play, but it must be written in such a way that it is clear to a reader that this is the personal interpretation of the author and also it needs to state the argument that leads the author to a particular conclusion.
Wearing another of my hats, I am constantly writing on the draft theses of students the words 'why?' or 'how?' as a statement without support or reasoning just leads to the situation that Kevin describes — it is in the book so it must be true! The internet, of course, is even worse in this respect as few sites have had a critical eye passed over them.