3rd February 2006, 2:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 3rd February 2006, 2:58 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
You know what it is irrelevent to. It is irrelevent to the issue of whether or not he was decieving people.
Now then, if you have good reason to believe he did not in fact make up any details, and was just poetic about it, then there is good cause to consider it non-fiction.
However, he can't make up even the slightest detail without evidence before it crosses that line, the line between fiction and nonfiction.
It is true that a lot of people make up details, big and small, in "true" stories, but I hold them to the same standard.
I merely state that if he did in fact make up details, he should not have labelled the book nonfiction.
I will also admit all I know are the details I have heard on the news regarding this. However, I will say this. You can't quote the book itself as evidence of it's validity. That is, since I know exactly how I will be misunderstood, you can't say "this part is true because of what this part of the book says". That is the sort of self-referencing defense you can't use.
However, I will say this, it seems that if the guy actually admitted to it, and the news has exposed it, it is more likely to be true than not, and when it comes to truth values, all we can really get are probabilities of accuracy.
Now then, if you have good reason to believe he did not in fact make up any details, and was just poetic about it, then there is good cause to consider it non-fiction.
However, he can't make up even the slightest detail without evidence before it crosses that line, the line between fiction and nonfiction.
It is true that a lot of people make up details, big and small, in "true" stories, but I hold them to the same standard.
I merely state that if he did in fact make up details, he should not have labelled the book nonfiction.
I will also admit all I know are the details I have heard on the news regarding this. However, I will say this. You can't quote the book itself as evidence of it's validity. That is, since I know exactly how I will be misunderstood, you can't say "this part is true because of what this part of the book says". That is the sort of self-referencing defense you can't use.
However, I will say this, it seems that if the guy actually admitted to it, and the news has exposed it, it is more likely to be true than not, and when it comes to truth values, all we can really get are probabilities of accuracy.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)