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, 02:58 PM   #11
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Would you like to discuss this or just toy with us?



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







Quote:
I think that historical researchers have an intuitive grasp of what is convincing, but I don't know of any official definition.

outstanding. in other words: :huh:
Quote:
Please relate this to BCH.

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.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 02:59 PM   #12
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 Toto View Post

Please explain why you are asking this, and the context, or this thread can be deep sixed.


it was to introduce a relevant discussion topic that i wanted to discuss. go deep six elsewhere.
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?
Sauron is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:00 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
No it does not, pete. you are speaking of only one consideration for establishing historic facticity.
Is it just me or do you feel a bible coming on?

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:03 PM   #14
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boro Nut View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
No it does not, pete. you are speaking of only one consideration for establishing historic facticity.
Is it just me or do you feel a bible coming on?

Boro Nut



Not too sure what you are trying to say but to clarify: I am a atheistic non-christian.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:06 PM   #15
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

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



it was to introduce a relevant discussion topic that i wanted to discuss. go deep six elsewhere.
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?
You misquoted me. Apologize.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:20 PM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
In the field of ancient history evidence is generally acceptable
as citations to source authors and their texts, and any and all
archeological and/or scientific data (ie: citations again) that
is available to the research.

This includes architecture, art, sculpture, epigraphic inscriptions
and mosaics, graffitt, burial relics and sarcophagi, coins of all
denominations and content (gold, silver, bronze, etc), all forms
of pottery and etchings, frescoes, reliefs, archeological relics,
etc, etc, etc [this list is not definitive] and in addition those
scientific and/or traditional processes of analysis related to
the field of ancient history such as paleography
(handwriting analysis and dating), and carbon dating.

Does this help?



Pete
No it does not, pete. you are speaking of only one consideration for establishing historic facticity.
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.

Quote:
The moment two different and competing propositions (or sources) are consistent with the relevant accepted claims, then your are in a truffle.
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.


Quote:
Do tell me this forum does have a firm grasp on the constitutives in establishing historic fact, eh? :
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
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:23 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Interesting that

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~ View Post
No, i do not. I am not asking because i am ignorant.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~M~
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:23 PM   #18
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

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?
You misquoted me. Apologize.
Making demands?

Your first demand was "read the title and answer". That didn't work, either.
Sauron is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:33 PM   #19
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

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

You misquoted me. Apologize.
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.
~M~ is offline  
Old 07-31-2007, 03:51 PM   #20
~M~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto.
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

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


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


Quote:


But Mr. M reads it as a deliberate insult.
i did not.


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

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



Quote:
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?

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.




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.


Quote:
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.
~M~ 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.