I understand that, but what does it have to do with Conquest specifically? The mainstream, the conventional wisdom, etc., treat Conquest as authoritative. He wrote on the subject for 50 years with his reputation intact at his death, except for some on the Left. So I want to know what do the people on this list know that everyone else got wrong about Conquest? What facts can you point to that would lead a neutral observer to conclude that (1) Conquest made a material factual error, or (2) Conquest reached a conclusion that was not simply based upon incomplete facts, but where the known facts better supported an opposite conclusion.
And perhaps the more important question is why does it matter if Conquest was right or wrong? If Conquest was right, will that cause you to change your mind about anything important? David Shemano From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael perelman Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 5:13 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Robert Conquest David, people, including those with an ax to grind, make all sorts of supposedly factual assertions, which can be difficult to disprove. On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Shemano, David B. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: So the issue is not that anyone has ever disproved a Conquest factual assertion, but instead that Conquest's evidence for a specific assertion is allegedly weak. I suppose that is always a challenge for a historian -- drawing conclusions from incomplete information, and we all have a subjective standard of proof based upon the issue at hand. For some, there will never be enough proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. But a key reason why Oswald is assumed to be the killer is not that the evidence for Oswald is necessarily conclusive, but that the evidence for every other alternative is much weaker. So, give me an example of a factual assertion by Conquest for which there is contrary evidence that is now universally recognized (by professional historians) as more compelling. David Shemano -----Original Message----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Charlie Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 5:44 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Teen Who Exposed a Professor's Myth David Shemano wrote: "What factual assertions by Conquest have been factually disproved?" Of course, one need not factually disprove an assertion by Conquest, if your question implies anything more than demonstrating that Conquest did not establish as fact many of his factual assertions. For that, there are too many to list here. For a start with plenty of references, see http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/08/05/grover-furr-on-robert-conquest/ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l ____________________________________________________ Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from your system. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Robins Kaplan LLP http://www.robinskaplan.com<http://www.robinskaplan.com/> ____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
