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.