gjb
Sr. Member
- Apr 21, 2016
- 264
- 325
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Recent discussions in the Season 11 thread have raised the question of whether or not there might be any evidence of a deposit of some form having taken place on Oak Island and raising the observation that itās unlikely that such will be found unless itās looked for.
It was further observed that there could be evidence that has been missed, potentially due to preconceptions and misconceptions about the past and the nature of āevidenceā, though I do sense that thereās considerable doubt here that such could have happened.
The discussion has been bound up in the vexed question of sources. Itās generally recognised that there are two classes of source: primary sources, essentially created at the time the events took place, and secondary sources such as reports and analysis of the primary sources conducted afterwards. Itās also widely appreciated that primary sources can be misleading due to personal bias and agendas, which is where the assessorās preconceptions might enter into the mix.
Another problem of historical analysis is what some term āpresentismā, failing to assess evidence drawn from sources in the context of the period in which the events took place, that is, making judgements based on present day values and present day thinking.
The study and reporting of history inevitably reflects an element of subjectivity, but the expectation is that the reporter or observer should be as objective as possible. Did a lack of objectivity occur in the past and is it happening now? The truth is that we know very little about the assumed activity on the island, but the fact is that many people are declaring that they do, and, in many cases negating components of the mystery, completely dismiss the sources that would potentially provide either evidence relating to the mystery or pointers to it.
In the records of the Oak Island saga there are hints as to the possible existence of original sources, but those who assessed them at the time they emerged summarily dismissed them, and their judgements prevail. But were the original assessments correct, and is it not valid to go back and assess them again? Surely so, but there will be no incentive to do so should people insist that thereās no evidence to be found.
So, maybe we should be taking a fresh look at the sources and the evidence drawn from them and be doing so through the eyes of the past. That will not be easy, and would require an element of study, but this would be preferable to making pronouncements concerning the past without at least trying to understand it or what remains of it for us to study.
The fact that no primary source evidence of an Oak Island deposit has been presented doesnāt necessarily mean that none exists. The pointers to such sources may have been missed or discarded for the wrong reasons, and this wonāt be known unless we look for them and attempt to research them if found - also that we do the job as thoroughly and as objectively as possible.
So, as the Oak Island quest seems to be getting nowhere then maybe something has been missed. My reassessment of the mystery was undertaken on this basis, but I could very well have taken a wrong turn or missed something myself. In any event, declaring that there's no evidence to be found is the kiss of death for research!
It was further observed that there could be evidence that has been missed, potentially due to preconceptions and misconceptions about the past and the nature of āevidenceā, though I do sense that thereās considerable doubt here that such could have happened.
The discussion has been bound up in the vexed question of sources. Itās generally recognised that there are two classes of source: primary sources, essentially created at the time the events took place, and secondary sources such as reports and analysis of the primary sources conducted afterwards. Itās also widely appreciated that primary sources can be misleading due to personal bias and agendas, which is where the assessorās preconceptions might enter into the mix.
Another problem of historical analysis is what some term āpresentismā, failing to assess evidence drawn from sources in the context of the period in which the events took place, that is, making judgements based on present day values and present day thinking.
The study and reporting of history inevitably reflects an element of subjectivity, but the expectation is that the reporter or observer should be as objective as possible. Did a lack of objectivity occur in the past and is it happening now? The truth is that we know very little about the assumed activity on the island, but the fact is that many people are declaring that they do, and, in many cases negating components of the mystery, completely dismiss the sources that would potentially provide either evidence relating to the mystery or pointers to it.
In the records of the Oak Island saga there are hints as to the possible existence of original sources, but those who assessed them at the time they emerged summarily dismissed them, and their judgements prevail. But were the original assessments correct, and is it not valid to go back and assess them again? Surely so, but there will be no incentive to do so should people insist that thereās no evidence to be found.
So, maybe we should be taking a fresh look at the sources and the evidence drawn from them and be doing so through the eyes of the past. That will not be easy, and would require an element of study, but this would be preferable to making pronouncements concerning the past without at least trying to understand it or what remains of it for us to study.
The fact that no primary source evidence of an Oak Island deposit has been presented doesnāt necessarily mean that none exists. The pointers to such sources may have been missed or discarded for the wrong reasons, and this wonāt be known unless we look for them and attempt to research them if found - also that we do the job as thoroughly and as objectively as possible.
So, as the Oak Island quest seems to be getting nowhere then maybe something has been missed. My reassessment of the mystery was undertaken on this basis, but I could very well have taken a wrong turn or missed something myself. In any event, declaring that there's no evidence to be found is the kiss of death for research!
