GDG- Another few cents on the New Museum...

[John Rudy]

I can't force you to follow industry standards and practices, this is very
true.  Triangulation of evidence doesn't mean much, apparently.

Oh, and just to make one thing clear, the burden of proof NEVER lies on the
one claiming against something (the defense).  In law, just as in history,
the side arguing the affirmative (the prosecution) has a clear burden of
proof.  Court cases of he-said/she-said end up so often in the dustbin
because there is only one witness claiming an act happened.

Just because I can't prove that something is not true doesn't make it
instantly true.  Logic dictates we need to assume claims as untrue until
they can be properly tested and verified.  Hence innocent until proven
guilty, and not the other way around.

The problem with you deciding that it is fine for me not to believe it, and
you to do the opposite is simple: the NPS has weight and authority far above
our poor power.  People are not entering that new museum with a skeptical
eye, but instead that new museum is seen by 90% of the visitation as gospel
truth.  It is one thing for us to argue this in an academic forum, where we
all presumably are skeptical of any claim placed before us until proper
evidence is presented.  It is an entire other matter when the claim sits in
a museum that the public assumes is THE authority on the Civil War and
Gettysburg.  Statements need to be doubly measured and weighed in such a
setting because of the sheer blind faith of much of the visitorship.


-John



On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM, jack <jlawrence at kc.rr.com> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> Hello.
>
> Don't get me wromng either, but there is of course a source here. I'm not
> going to get ninvolved in a local thing, as I pride myself on having no axes
> to grind. But there is a source and a "single source" is still a source and
> a pretty valid source if it is unrefuted. You can dismiss it as being
> unsubstantiated, but all that means is you don't agree with it.
>
> You know, the real problem here is the undocumented nature or the
> Underground Railroad. There are no schedules and no t a lot of people wrote
> things down. They might send a warning ahead, but they were unlikely to keep
> detailed journals.
>
> This is a situation in where you havev to look at the story and see if it
> makes sense. The story makes sense. And it has a source.
>
> You can believe it or disbelieve it. You have chosen not to believe it.
> Fine with me.
>
> I don't have a dog inthis one.
>
> Regards,
>
> jaCk
>
>
> But you still can't disprove it.
>