FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-31-2007, 03:54 PM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 315
Default

Let me give it a try.
I'm not an Historian. But let me tell you what I would look for.

I need to know about the author of the material and how he was able to know the information that he is reporting. What is the author's relationship to the events being reported. I would need to corroborate some of the author's information with another independant source.
Some other factors would be if the author was an independant observer or if the author was a relative, friend, or co-conspirator.
It would matter greatly if the author had written any statements known to be untrue. Or if the author contradicted himself, even in small details.
Do we have the author's original autograph?
If there are many copies of the author's work, do they agree and how are they different?

This is what I would look at.

stuart shepherd
stuart shepherd is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 04:03 PM   #22
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

The field of ancient history admits a plurality of source evidence.
Each of the sub-fields that I listed above are separate and distinct
considerations which should be braided together in a weave that
is isomorphic with the chronology.

not too sure where you are going with this.



Quote:
The word I mentioned was integrity, consistency.
or this. does not seem to follow the abovementioned quote or someone associated with the one below.
Quote:
That all possible known "ancient historical sources"
represent "the evidence" communicable between
people.

"possible known sources..."? does not seem to be coherent. Furthermore, do the sources represent the evidence or are they the evidence? I am having trouble understanding you.

Quote:
However it occurs to me you may be talking about
postulates, or hypotheses. Feel free to expand.
No. I am talking about facts and reliable sources. I want to know what makes a fact and what makes a source reliable. I told you why your previous answer regarding mere consistency was faulty.

Quote:

Otherwise, IMO "the constitutives in establishing
historic fact" are bound by this list of categories
of citations to evidence.


huh?
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 04:07 PM   #23
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart shepherd View Post
Let me give it a try.
I'm not an Historian. But let me tell you what I would look for.

I need to know about the author of the material and how he was able to know the information that he is reporting. What is the author's relationship to the events being reported. I would need to corroborate some of the author's information with another independant source.
Some other factors would be if the author was an independant observer or if the author was a relative, friend, or co-conspirator.
It would matter greatly if the author had written any statements known to be untrue. Or if the author contradicted himself, even in small details.
Do we have the author's original autograph?
If there are many copies of the author's work, do they agree and how are they different?

This is what I would look at.

stuart shepherd

hi stuart,

unfortunately, you are not answering the question but rather telling me the questions you would ask yourself to help assess factualness and reliability. It does not tell me what makes a proposition a fact and does not tell me what makes it reliable.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 04:14 PM   #24
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart shepherd View Post
Let me give it a try.
I'm not an Historian. But let me tell you what I would look for.

I need to know about the author of the material and how he was able to know the information that he is reporting. What is the author's relationship to the events being reported. I would need to corroborate some of the author's information with another independant source.
Some other factors would be if the author was an independant observer or if the author was a relative, friend, or co-conspirator.
It would matter greatly if the author had written any statements known to be untrue. Or if the author contradicted himself, even in small details.
Do we have the author's original autograph?
If there are many copies of the author's work, do they agree and how are they different?

This is what I would look at.

stuart shepherd

hi stuart,

unfortunately, you are not answering the question but rather telling me the questions you would ask yourself to help assess factualness and reliability. It does not tell me what makes a proposition a fact and does not tell me what makes it reliable.

Hi M,
I am anxiously waiting for you to tell us the answer.

stuart shepherd
stuart shepherd is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 05:12 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron View Post

Making demands?

Your first demand was "read the title and answer". That didn't work, either.
Hare's Law: An ought entails the corresponding imperative.
Except you didn't use the word "ought"; you merely commanded. In both cases.

Yes, there is a world of difference between 'ought' and issuing an imperative. One might get you a reaction. The other won't.
Sauron is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 05:12 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
...

I am skeptical that they are well understood. I was hoping to explore, among other things, whether i am wrong.
How do we know if you are wrong if you won't reveal your hand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
But we don't often use the word "fact" and do not often talk about "reliable sources."
Interesting that you are able to somehow assess the frequency of those words. what was your strategy? Some sort of statistical assessment?
My general impression based on years of being a mod here.

Quote:
In any case, my claim was only that they are mentioned and that they are relevant. This is sufficient for my thread to stay.
But so far you have rejected all attempts at responding to your question. Either you are not being clear enough, or you don't really have a question. Which is it?

Quote:
Quote:
I think there was some recent discussion about how some sources are more reliable than others, but in general all historical sources are suspect. Obvious forgeries and obvious fantasies can be rejected outright, but even honest sources are not necessarily the truth.
This does not seem to answer my question. i am not too sure if it were intended to.
So what is your question? Why do you keep rejecting attempts to answer it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
I am not uncomfortable; I am ANNOYED. You are increasing my work as a moderator by asking vague questions and hiding your point of view so that I have to wade through a lot of marginal comments and decide if I need to move this mess.
I don't understand. I told you clearly why it is relevant to historical discourse. You have not effectively address this point at all.

can i have another mod assess this? i am suspicious of your impartialness.
You did not tell me clearly why this is relevant.

Perhaps it would help if you asked about specific examples: e.g., is Josephus a reliable source?

I suspect you are looking for an answer to a question that cannot be answered - such as "What is Truth?"
Toto is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:08 PM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: auckland nz
Posts: 18,090
Default

going back to the OP (if i understand it correctly, which I'm unsure if I do)

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

e.g. one of the big christian come backs when people say Jesus (as in the bible) never existed, is 'how do you know julius ceaser ever existed'

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.
We have no records outside the bible for any of Jesus' activities

Compare to Julius Ceaser - many independant eyewitness accounts (e.g. from his enemies as well as friends) written at the time, rather than years after the fact. We also have many written official records of his existence as well as contemperaneous coins with his face and name on it, and busts etc etc.
NZSkep is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:44 PM   #28
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post


How do we know if you are wrong if you won't reveal your hand?

if it is the case that posters in here can coherently answer me in a way that shows they are well understood, then i will tell you i am wrong and hence you will then know.


Quote:
My general impression based on years of being a mod here.
then you will understand why it is that i give such little weight to your inference.



Quote:
But so far you have rejected all attempts at responding to your question. Either you are not being clear enough, or you don't really have a question. Which is it?

This is a false dichotomy. It could be and as far as i am concerned it is the case that i was quite clear; and that there was, indeed, a question asked. In contrast to your proposal, i vote for the third albeit neglected disjunct: the posters,alas, have all failed to answer a lucid and coherent question.

Quote:
So what is your question?
Dear lord...

what are all the necessary variables needed to make a proposition a historic fact and what are all the necessary variables needed to establish a source as reliable.

Quote:
Why do you keep rejecting attempts to answer it?
because they do not answer the question or, if they do, they only offer some variables (although not necessarily necessary variables)



Quote:

Perhaps it would help if you asked about specific examples: e.g., is Josephus a reliable source?

No. The question is a bit broader.
What is it about all reliable sources that makes them reliable? what is it about all historic facts that make them facts?


Quote:

I suspect you are looking for an answer to a question that cannot be answered - such as "What is Truth?"


nope.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:47 PM   #29
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZSkep View Post
going back to the OP (if i understand it correctly, which I'm unsure if I do)

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

e.g. one of the big christian come backs when people say Jesus (as in the bible) never existed, is 'how do you know julius ceaser ever existed'

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.
We have no records outside the bible for any of Jesus' activities

Compare to Julius Ceaser - many independant eyewitness accounts (e.g. from his enemies as well as friends) written at the time, rather than years after the fact. We also have many written official records of his existence as well as contemperaneous coins with his face and name on it, and busts etc etc.

I want to answer but...
is this an attempt to answer the reliability question or the factual question? Or both?
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 06:51 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

To NZSkep - how do you know what's independent? Is Josephus dependent on Christians for his remarks? Tacitus?
Chris Weimer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:33 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.