NavList:

   

Reply

George Huxtable wrote:
>
> What Frank and I have been discussing recently, is really the question of
> how we draw statistical conclusions from what may be a biased body of
> evidence, But following Brad's lead, it's worthwhile to widen it a little.
>
> Brad and Geoffrey are shifting the question (as they have every right to do)
> into distinguishing "good" or "careful" navigation from the rest. I wouldn't
> presume to be able to do that. Instead, I was addressing two examples of
> incompetent or irresponsibly careless navigation, which I think we would all
> recognise as such, and wondering how common they were in practice, in their
> era.

By my reasoning, a litmus test would be as follows:

1. Were they able to navigate to the whaling grounds? (And "grounds seems
like a strange term for water ;-)

2. Were they able to chase whales around and perhaps (in the heat of battle)
make some reasonable estimation of where they were after a chase?

3. Successful or not in the hunt, were they able to navigate back to their
home port?

Short of ships and souls lost to storms at sea, those company records (if
available) should pretty well tell the tale.

Bill B.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply