Peter Kirby

What is the methodology for evaluating the validity of a proposed methodology, such as a proposed one for sifting history from nonhistory?

I look forward to your sublime answers, and dread the potshots.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

krosero

Just a few criteria that I can think of:

1) Style. Poetry is not likely to be historical. Prose might very well be, but for that you need further tests.

2) Content. Historical or scientific works, by definition, propose things that are in principle falsifiable. If a text does not propose these things, it is likely to be some sort of fiction.

3) Compare against texts widely agreed to be either historical or non-historical. Determine the number of similarities and differences.

Peter Kirby

The question is, how do we determine which of these criteria are valid?

I know, an easy question to make...which is why I ask that the answer submlimate the question.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think that people have tried applying the methodology to a variety of historical / non-historical situations and checking the results against either reality or common sense.

E.g. - using the criterion of embarrassment is checked by looking at embarrassment in clearly non-historical works. GD is trying to check Doherty's judgments by applying his criteria to other 2nd century writers.

Peter Kirby

Okay, so we have a store of pre-methodological facts and we evaluate our methodological criteria based on performance tests against those. Is everyone in agreement, or might there be alternatives to this solution?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

krosero

I don't know that there is such a thing as pre-methodological facts. We do have a pre-methodological store of data, of course -- but that data will have to remain under examination. It need not be always the focus of examination, but it has to remain under revision and questioning.

And of course, the pre-methodological "facts" or conclusions were reached by applying methodology. They are, technically, post-methodological facts.

What did you mean by pre-methodological facts?

Peter Kirby

I meant, by function, facts by which we evaluate methodologies. I meant, by denotation, facts accepted prior to accepting the same methodologies.

Is Toto's solution workable, do you think?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think you need to wait at least 24 hours to ask if everyone is in agreement, to pick up the time zones on the other side of the world.

The alternative to this is what I think the post-modernists claim: you can't reconstruct the past, you can only deconstruct the text.

krosero

Peter asks if this solution works. I would like to see it tried, for instance by taking all the criterion usually applied to the New Testament and applying them rigorously to other figures of antiquity, both historical and non-historical. But I would caution that the criterion would change depending on whether the object of study is historical or mythical, especially for instance the criterion of embarrassment. Not that I've thought this out to all possible instances, but I would think that something embarrassing is MORE embarrassing or hurtful if it's thought of as historical; something regarded as mythical won't have the same sting of humility, and might be heard merely as ridicule.

Peter Kirby

I agree.

That certainly has a nice ring to it. What are the other merits of this claim?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby