~M~

Why I wish to discuss, of course. Do you feel toyed with?








outstanding. in other words: :huh:

Historic method is relevant to historical discourse and certainly relevant to this board so long as Biblical criticism and history uses words such like "fact" and "reliable" sources.

I can see that your uncomfortableness with the subject (funny how you did not attack the pertinence of the thread when you assumed i was ignorant to the topic) at hand is leaning you towards doing away with this thread but, alas, the thread is entirely relevant.

Sauron

Based upon your comment ("I am ignorant"), it doesn't sound like you want to discuss this. It sounds more like you want to be educated for free.

Maybe you should do some reading on your own, form a foundation of understanding, and then come back?

Boro Nut

Is it just me or do you feel a bible coming on?

Boro Nut

~M~

Not too sure what you are trying to say but to clarify: I am a atheistic non-christian.

~M~

You misquoted me. Apologize.

mountainman

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.

The word I mentioned was integrity, consistency.

That all possible known "ancient historical sources"
represent "the evidence" communicable between
people.

However it occurs to me you may be talking about
postulates, or hypotheses. Feel free to expand.


I am sure that each reader will make their own
call on things from time to time, as well as the
usual appeals to authority of various kinds
not included in the above list.

Any reader who thinks I may have missed a specific
category of citations type in that list above, please
feel free to add.

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

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Interesting that

was misread as "Because I am ignorant"

which is an understandable confusion. It is why good communicators are adviced to avoid the word "not."

But Mr. M reads it as a deliberate insult.

So if you are not ignorant, what is your take on reliable sources and historical facts?

But we don't often use the word "fact" and do not often talk about "reliable sources." 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.

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'll give you a few more posts to establish the relevance of this thread to BCH.

Sauron

Making demands?

Your first demand was "read the title and answer". That didn't work, either.

~M~

Hare's Law: An ought entails the corresponding imperative.

~M~

don't you mean that good communicators avoid the word "not" and not that someone " adviced" good communicators to avoid the word "not"?


i did not.



I am skeptical that they are well understood. I was hoping to explore, among other things, whether i am wrong.




Interesting that you are able to somehow assess the frequency of those words. what was your strategy? Some sort of statistical assessment?

In any case, my claim was only that they are mentioned and that they are relevant. This is sufficient for my thread to stay.

How often they are mentioned is your own awkward construction that has no bearing on what i am saying or if this thread ought to stay.






This does not seem to answer my question. i am not too sure if it were intended to.






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.