stuart shepherd

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

~M~

not too sure where you are going with this.



or this. does not seem to follow the abovementioned quote or someone associated with the one below.

"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.

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.



huh?

~M~

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.

stuart shepherd

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

stuart shepherd

Sauron

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.

Toto

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

My general impression based on years of being a mod here.

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?

So what is your question? Why do you keep rejecting attempts to answer it?

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?"

NZSkep

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.

~M~

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.


then you will understand why it is that i give such little weight to your inference.




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.

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.

because they do not answer the question or, if they do, they only offer some variables (although not necessarily necessary variables)




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?




nope.

~M~

I want to answer but...
is this an attempt to answer the reliability question or the factual question? Or both?

Chris Weimer

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