[Sca-cooks] You know you're in the SCA when... (was Hard liquorin period recipes, was Adamantius pants)

[Terry Decker]

The problem with "I read it somewhere" attached to a declarative statement 
is that it is a call to an unidentified authority which is difficult to 
value or challenge unless someone recognizes the source or has conflicting 
or corroborating information.   To use a book this way is not to inspire 
thought, but to present "facts" demonstrating the cleverness of the 
presenter.  If the presenter is not sure of the validity of the facts, then 
presenting them without caveat is a form of bludgeoning the audience.

The fact that you have a book doesn't make you right, but if you use that 
book to support a statement or present a thesis, there is an obligation to 
insure that your information is as accurate as you can make it.  Uncritical 
acceptance of "fact" without a cursory examination of the quality of the 
author or the work is merely abrogating your thought to authority.  Not a 
bit of inspiration in that.

And speculation is fine, but it clearly needs to be labelled as speculation. 
How does someone not on this list reading the words a year from now 
determine whether a statement was speculation or pontification?  Without the 
distinction, we, as authors of these missives, become guilty of further 
spreading misinformation.

Contradiction occurs.  So do errors, oversights, and hyperbole.  Presenting 
such as "fact" without noting the context is deceit.  We all take diet books 
with a grain of salt knowing that the author is usually overstating the 
facts to support their views.  But how do you value a dietary "fact" if you 
don't know whether it comes from a best selling diet book or a scientific 
paper from a major diet study?

The salt/no salt argument isn't really valid when talking about primary 
sources with no external references.  They stand by themselves.  But what 
about Martino's recipe for chicken in orange sauce which was translated in 
Platina as being chicken in citron or lemon sauce.  Platina's recipe is 
correct in the context of Platina's work in Latin, but it is not an accurate 
translation of Martino's work.  And what about the issue of the salt being 
edited out in the fourth edition of the original text.  Is the first edition 
more correct than the fourth edition?  A lot of work goes into comparing 
manuscripts and texts just to answer these kinds of questions.

The problem with references is one really need to know about them to 
evaluate them.  A direct quote from Pliny has one value.  A tertiary 
interpretation of a badly translated original text has another.  But if one 
doesn't know which is which, how can one place a value on them?

There is a lot of misinformation in the world.  All of us know "facts" that 
aren't really so.  To my mind the goal should be to refine our knowledge and 
try to reduce the spread of our misinformation.  To that end, should we not 
try to be clear about the sources of our "facts" and the intent of their 
presentation?

Bear

> Usually when I say I read it somewhere, it means I have.  Which
> of the unknown number of books  I have read in 36 years (I haven't
> been counting, really).   If someone produces documentation to the
> contrary (lack of documentation isn't necessarily proof something
> didn't happen when you are dealing with a legend/lore situation)
> then the onus is on my anus to produce my documentation.
>
> Also, "I read it somewhere" is a call out to anyone else on the list
> who may have read the same book within recent memory and has
> it at hand, and can maybe cite it.
>
> If I don't post a book title, I am speculating, but even if I have a
> book title, it just means I have a book.  It doesn't mean I was right.
>
> Books can echo a commonly held belief in a time.  Take for instance
> the modern diet.  How many books out there claim there are the
> correct diet?  All of them.  Contradiction happens.
>
> A case for instance, how many period recipes document the addition
> of salt to the recipe?  But in the same period we may find another book
> documenting the addition of salt.   But both books are right.
>
> Books are meant to insipre thought, not bludgeon it to death.
>
> Yeah, I know I have deviated from the topic slightly, but I had some
> thoughts I needed to get out.
>
> Cadoc