06-16-2005, 06:44 PM
"France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city, just to save their own skin."
No, that's a fact plus a claim.
This is a fact:
"France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city..."
There's nothing in there that is subject to interpretation. France did have a large army. They did fold within 30 days. They did declare Paris an open city. All of this is well within the realm of the absolutely knowable (insofar as anything is in that realm).
This is a claim:
"... just to save their own skin."
This is interpretation. You can't know the motives of a single person, let alone a whole nation, well enough to say anything that definite about them. Now, I happen to agree with you on this interpretation. But you have no method of verifying this well enough to call it a fact. It may be a very likely claim (it is), but it is still just that. It is open to counter-argument.
You shouldn't attach interpretation on to information and claim both of them as fact. State the facts, and if you've got an interpretation, argue for that interpretation.
Jester
No, that's a fact plus a claim.
This is a fact:
"France, who had a large army when WWII started, folded to the Nazis within 30 days, and declared Paris an open city..."
There's nothing in there that is subject to interpretation. France did have a large army. They did fold within 30 days. They did declare Paris an open city. All of this is well within the realm of the absolutely knowable (insofar as anything is in that realm).
This is a claim:
"... just to save their own skin."
This is interpretation. You can't know the motives of a single person, let alone a whole nation, well enough to say anything that definite about them. Now, I happen to agree with you on this interpretation. But you have no method of verifying this well enough to call it a fact. It may be a very likely claim (it is), but it is still just that. It is open to counter-argument.
You shouldn't attach interpretation on to information and claim both of them as fact. State the facts, and if you've got an interpretation, argue for that interpretation.
Jester