[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Martini-Organ-Fireplace ] [ I Have It On Videotape ] [Legalese/Privacy]

As Is Well Known

Diatribes? I've got your diatribes! Here's a good one: "as is well known".

As is well known, anybody who believes some bogus assertion of fact solely because he believes (or someone tells him) that, "As is well known, [here insert bogus assertion]", without further support, is only fooling himself.

I've got a better idea. When you make an assertion of fact–a descriptions of an historical event–support it (either up front, or on request) with a good protocol, i.e.:

1.   a citation,

2.   which is solid.

■                   Not a quotation, but a citation. A quotation is an extract from an original document, coupled with the assertion (but no proof) that the extract is both accurate and in context. A citation is a way to find that original document ("the cited document"), or a reliable copy thereof. The "citation" and the "cited document" are thus quite different things. The citation will be something that you:

·                    can click on (if you're on line), and have great confidence that an electronic document will appear in your browser; or  

·                    can print out (if you're off line) and hand to a reference librarian at the Library of the University of California at Irvine (please adjust "UCI Library" to mean a comparable institution in your area; I pick UCI only because I live in Orange County), and have great confidence that said reference librarian will:

□                   scurry into the back room

□                   emerge with her hands filled by some book, magazine, monograph, microfiche, or other tangible embodiment of information which she was readily able to locate solely from the printout; and

□                   permit you to check out that tangible embodiment (or at least to copy of as much of same as you're willing to pay a modest fee for).

■                   And the citation had better be solid. This means that the cited document (please recall that "the citation" and "the cited document" are quite different things) must at least appear to be the work of someone who was:

·                    with first-hand knowledge of the fact at issue; and

·                    reliable, i.e., someone who either:

□                   had no perceptible reason to lie (or be confused); or

□                   had placed the document on the public record long enough for one or more other persons to:

o                    have (or have acquired) differing views on what the facts really were; and

o                    have come across this public record of this "reliable" person's assertions of fact; and either:

¨                  have never publicly attacked this "reliable" person's assertions of fact (and a "reasonable" method for determining the absence of any such public attack must be set out, in advance); or

¨                  have publicly attacked this "reliable" person's assertions of fact (and the attack must be cited to), but seem to have lost the ensuing public debate (which also must be cited to).

Note that "I have it on videotape" will not do. Click here to find out why.

Note also how important it is that the cited-to document must have been made (or have been prepared from notes which were made) promptly (and, preferably, immediately) after observing the event in question. Failure to do so runs the grave risk of contracting Martini-Organ-Fireplace Disease.

Note finally that this applies only to assertions of fact, and does not apply to ideas or opinions:

·                    We can debate all day as to whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had the net effect of taking lives (a lot of Japanese went up in smoke on those two days) or of saving them (if Japan hadn't surrendered, the follow-on invasion would have been even bloodier). That's fine as long as there is a clear (albeit perhaps tacit) agreement on how many lives went up in smoke, and what the projected invasion casualties were. Perhaps the debate will turn on whether a demonstration of the bomb out at sea would have induced a surrender. Perhaps the recent Soviet declaration of war against Japan could have been better exploited. These are ideas and opinions.

·                    But what if there is no clear (or even tacit) agreement agreement on how many lives went up in smoke, or on what the projected invasion death toll was? One person says that the bombs actually killed 500,000 Japanese, and that projected deaths in the invasion–what MacArthur actually told Truman in late July–were only 10,000. Another person reverses the numbers. These are no longer ideas or opinions; these are descriptions of historical events. Who counted the Japanese deaths? What was their method for deciding whether a death was due to the bombs or to, say, malnutrition? What did MacArthur tell Truman? Were there people on either side of the Pacific writing any of this down? Can you show me a copy of their reports?

·                    When everyone has the same copies of the same documents, then the debate can continue. The solidity of each document can be determined, and each document can be examined to see what the factual statements it does support -- as distinct from what what factual statements it is only alleged to support. But there has to be a common body of cited-to documents, and enough of them have to be reasonably solid, before meaningful debate can proceed.