Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 08-12-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You are doing right now exactly what you accuse some of these sources of doing. Hey, just deal with sources as they are, no matter how much you don't like any particular one of them.

You care to back up this accusation?

Chris Weimer · 08-12-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

We should take all witnesses into account

Even if we have no reason to believe they actually witnessed anything?

They witnesses something, otherwise they would not have been written. The job of the historian is to determine what exactly (or rather, what probably) they witnessed. Perhaps it won't be relevant to a specific problem, but you cannot known that until it's analyzed.

aa5874 · 08-12-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Even if we have no reason to believe they actually witnessed anything?

They witnesses something, otherwise they would not have been written. The job of the historian is to determine what exactly (or rather, what probably) they witnessed. Perhaps it won't be relevant to a specific problem, but you cannot known that until it's analyzed.

How can you tell in advance that something written was witnessed? Are all written works non-fiction?

Roger Pearse · 08-13-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

We can always think of reasons to ignore a witness.

Yes, we can. And therefore . . . what?

Indeed. Pardon me, but my urge to force you to think is low this morning.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 08-13-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

We should take all witnesses into account, even ones that present no history, because everything contributes to something in a way? :huh:

Chris, think about what you just said.

Evidence/facts about the past are made sense of in the form of historical narratives, which are essentially interpretations. We've already established that sources vary in their characteristics. Even biased and unreliable sources can pass on true facts about the past. It is through the comparison of various accounts that the facts can be identified.

You seem to have a problem with this subjective element inherent in sources. Yet you also want to ignore historical accounts or sources which you have already made negative value judgements about. You are doing right now exactly what you accuse some of these sources of doing. Hey, just deal with sources as they are, no matter how much you don't like any particular one of them.

Possibly you've misread the thread here? You see, that is precisely the opposite of what is being said here, by Chris and myself. That is what we do NOT want to do, and what those we respond to DO want to do.

Remember, we're dealing with a summary dismissal of testimony by Menander of Ephesus. This dismissal, without evidence, is based on nothing more than the fact that he wrote 500 years later. It ignores the clear evidence that he knew data about Tyrian king-lists which is not in dispute and has not otherwise reached us. It ignores the many pieces of data that we get from sources much later than the events than this. It would mean ignoring Photius, tearing up the Suda. And why? Well, that I leave you to determine.

But it won't do.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver · 08-13-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

my urge to force you to think is low this morning.

That is one thing I have never had to be forced to do. It's one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian.

Doug Shaver · 08-13-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

They witnesses something, otherwise they would not have been written.

I don't know any reason to make that assumption.

DCHindley · 08-13-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You are doing right now exactly what you accuse some of these sources of doing. Hey, just deal with sources as they are, no matter how much you don't like any particular one of them.

You care to back up this accusation?

I have no idea what you are implying by the term "accusation" or why anything I said would require "backing up".

I simply get the impression that you like to pre-screen sources, which I take to be a tactic to eliminate what you don't want to deal with.

Sorry you take offense.

DCH

DCHindley · 08-13-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

We should take all witnesses into account, even ones that present no history, because everything contributes to something in a way?

You are doing right now exactly what you accuse some of these sources of doing. Hey, just deal with sources as they are, no matter how much you don't like any particular one of them.

You care to back up this accusation?

Chris,

My humble apologies. I searched on your name here and on the net, and have to conclude that somehow I must have crossed you with someone else in my beady little mind. Maybe too much life to deal with ... <sigh>

It may have been your (presumably) rhetorical question in the post that I was responding to. Although I am a basically sceptical person, and sometimes utilize sarcasm when I encounter bizarre stupidity, I tend to expound on the issue a bit in order to temper it and make my own, alternate, point. It always puts me off when it is short and terse.

Again, sorry ...

DCH

Chris Weimer · 08-13-2007, 07:44 PM

Not a problem, Mr. Hindley. We all make mistakes, and I hold no grudges. :wave:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2007, 07:44 PM	#50
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Not a problem, Mr. Hindley. We all make mistakes, and I hold no grudges. :wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.