SITH in Rough Stone Rolling

Many people ask me about Rough Stone Rolling's depiction of the "stone-in-the-hat" (SITH) scenario. 

I did a close review of that section of Rough Stone Rolling, which is now at mobom.org, here:

https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review

The problem arises from the editorial decision in that book to portray assumptions, inferences, and theories as facts.

For example, it is a fact that so-and-so wrote something down. Maybe it's a first-person account, or a second-hand account (such as an account by a reporter or interviewer), or even third-hand. But the existence of the account, which is factual, does not make the account itself factual.

A person can write a statement such as "the car was red." The existence of the statement is a fact, but it is merely evidence that the car was actually red. If we, after reading the statement, say "the car was red," we are assuming the person told the truth, but if we are precise (clear), we can say only that so-and-so said the car was red.

But many historians simply write "the car was red," rationalizing that they have "a source."

Because this is such a common problem with the way historians write history, I can't tell if they are trained to write this way, if they are unaware of the problem, or if they are simply stating their beliefs as if they were facts. 

Or maybe they are just trying to simplify history to make it readable for the public. But if that's the case, it's a serious disservice when they don't clarify the difference between facts and assumptions/inferences/theories.

This is why I often assess things using the FAITH model (Facts, Assumptions, Inferences, Theories and Hypotheses). It seems simple enough.

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, clarity comes first, and that requires applying the FAITH model to historical evidence.