On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:37, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote
3 )An historian might deal with this by saying
something like, "Wagner
is seen by many to have been anti-Semitic, or at least to have supported
the idea of anti-Semitism This belief is generally based on one of
Wagner's own works [insert name here], in which he describes the Jews
as..." In this was, no one is labeling or falsely accusing anybody of
anything -- just offering a generally held conclusion and the basis
therefore. Speaking of which, I hope there is something similar in the
article about that nice Mr. Luther...
That said, unnecessary qualifications and hedging don't help the picture
either.
The world is thought by many to exist, even though we could all be
brains in a jar.
But we don't need to include that hedge except for a discussion of
"existence" or observables.
Similarly, when we make claims about the past, such as "There were ice
ages" or "Wagner was anti-Semitic", we mean "There is evidence of ice
ages in the past, where 'ice age' has a specific meaning" and "There is
evidence that Wagner was anti-Semitic, or at least supported the idea of
anti-Semitism".
It's inappropriate to claim "There were ice ages" without providing the
supporting evidence, but the claim itself is fine.