Freethought & Rationalism Archive

~M~ · 07-31-2007, 10:08 AM

Read the title and answer.

Toto · 07-31-2007, 11:49 AM

You need to do some background research on your own.

Historical_method (I haven't read it, but it might be a place to start.)

But it's best to avoid "historic fact." Scientists deal in facts. Historians deal in narrative, deconstruction, best explanations, and other such post modern concepts.

~M~ · 07-31-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You need to do some background research on your own.

No, i do not. I am not asking because i am ignorant.

mountainman · 07-31-2007, 12:40 PM

Historical integrity (consistency) with respect to all the "evidence"

~M~ · 07-31-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Historical integrity (consistency) with respect to all the "evidence"

is this all? just consistency? What evidence?

Toto · 07-31-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You need to do some background research on your own.

No, i do not. I am not asking because i am ignorant.

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

mountainman · 07-31-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Historical integrity (consistency) with respect to all the "evidence"

is this all? just consistency?

That is correct.
Over.

Quote:

What evidence?

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

~M~ · 07-31-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

No, i do not. I am not asking because i am ignorant.

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.

~M~ · 07-31-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

is this all? just consistency?

That is correct.
Over.

Quote:

What evidence?

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

Do tell me this forum does have a firm grasp on the constitutives in establishing historic fact, eh? :

Toto · 07-31-2007, 02:49 PM

Would you like to discuss this or just toy with us?

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

Please relate this to BCH.

07-31-2007, 10:08 AM	#1
~M~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto. Posts: 2,796	What makes a source reliable and what makes a proposition a historic fact? Read the title and answer.

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

07-31-2007, 11:49 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You need to do some background research on your own. Historical_method (I haven't read it, but it might be a place to start.) But it's best to avoid "historic fact." Scientists deal in facts. Historians deal in narrative, deconstruction, best explanations, and other such post modern concepts.

07-31-2007, 12:40 PM	#4
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Historical integrity (consistency) with respect to all the "evidence"

07-31-2007, 02:49 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Would you like to discuss this or just toy with us? I think that historical researchers have an intuitive grasp of what is convincing, but I don't know of any official definition. Please relate this to BCH.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.