Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-01-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

3. The procedures of historical research.3.1. Collection of data.
3.1.1. Notes.
3.1.1.1. Types of notes.
3.1.1.1.1. Bibliographical notes.
3.1.1.1.2. Subject notes. Items of information that may be used in the presentation of the data.
3.1.1.1.3. Method notes. Ideas which come to the researcher in the course of reading the material, such as new hypotheses, new places to seek out additional material, critical comments about reports under consideration, and general reactions to the document.
3.1.1.2. Media.
3.1.1.2.1. Record notes on cards (or a database that serves the purpose of cards).
3.1.2. Data.
3.1.2.1. Types of data.
3.1.2.1.1. Consciously transmitted information.
3.1.2.1.2. Relics.
3.1.2.1.3. Memorials.
3.1.2.2. Sources of data.
3.1.2.2.1. Primary sources. Materials by eyewitnesses.
3.1.2.2.2. Secondary sources. Hearsay materials.
3.2. Criticism of data.
3.2.1. Veracity of sources.
3.2.1.1. External aka Lower Criticism. Is the document under consideration a genuine one?
3.2.1.2. Internal aka Higher Criticism. Is the information contained in the document trustworthy (i.e., accurate, consistent, etc)?
3.2.1.2.1. Positive internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document was accurate, competent and acting in good faith (although keeping in mind that he may be speaking figuratively), and seek literal meaning of the statements of the document.
3.2.1.2.2. Negative internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document is fallible, foolish or faking and seeks evidence that this is not so.
3.2.1.3. Interrelation of lower and higher criticism.
3.2.1.3.1. The trustworthiness of the document may help determine whether it is genuine.
3.2.1.3.2. To the degree that a document can be determined to be genuine may help determine whether the information in it is trustworthy.
3.3. Presentation of data....

No wonder Ehrman the so-called Historian produced the disaster called "Did Jesus Exist?"--The Historical Agument for Jesus of Nazareth.

The Data Collected about Jesus of Nazareth is of almost no value for historical research.

Based on the procedure for an historical research it is clear that it is virtually impossible to make any conclusion in favor of historicity with the quality of material that is presently available.

No person can reasonably argue for an historical Jesus based on the procedure you have posted.

Thank you very much for posting this "Procedure for Historical Research". I will certainly use it AGAINST the HJ argument.

DCHindley · 12-01-2012, 10:22 AM

Method, by me, (c) 2000

I) METHOD: A system of right procedure for the attainment of truth.

1) SYNTHETIC: starts from the simple and proceeds to the compound, or starts from the universal and proceeds to the particular. It is the method of composition (sunqesis) inasmuch as it puts together (sunqeinai, componere) the simple elements that form the form the complex or composite whole.
2) ANALYTIC: starts from the complex and proceeds to the simple, and from the particular to the universal (laws?). Its mode is analysis or resolution (analusis), in that it resolves (analuein, resolvere) the composite whole into its component elements.

II) GENERAL LAWS OF METHOD, without reference to the special end which is proposed or attained:

1) Begin from what is near at hand and from there make our way to that which is remote, from the familiar to the unfamiliar, from what is easy to what is not easy.
2) Sound method is gradual.
3) Expect only that degree of certitude that our subject matter admits of.

III PRACTICAL RULES OF METHOD:

1) Never employ any TERM unless it be UNDERSTOOD
2) DISTINGUISH clearly BETWEEN the ESSENTIAL AND ACCIDENTAL ELEMENTS in the matter discussed.
3) Very carefully SEPARATE OFF the VARIOUS PARTS OF THE QUESTION to be discussed one from another, AND FOLLOW THEM UP IN DETAIL UNTIL we have MASTERED the several parts of which the whole is composed.
4) PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION:
i) INVESTIGATING FOR OURSELVES with a view to the attainment of scientific knowledge:
(1) WE HAVE BEFORE US COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE, the results of which are the combined results of a number of causes:
(a) BY ANALYSIS, we break up our phenomenon and form an hypothesis as to its component parts:
(b) BY SYNTHESIS, we test the hypothesis to determine whether the causes that are supposed to have produced it have really done so, and combine them together to see what the result will be.
ii) COMMUNICATING KNOWLEDGE already in our posession to others:
(1) STARTING WITH THE SIMPLE ELEMENTS
(a) BY SYNTHESIS the simple elements are combined to exhibit the complex result they would produce together:
(b) BY ANALYSIS show how known results were caused by the simple elements.

DCH

DCHindley · 12-01-2012, 10:28 AM

Ohhh! Lucky post #13!!! :constern01:

Database developers will recognize the rules of data organization used to create data tables and their attributes.

RULES OF DATA NORMALIZATION:

Start with unnormalized data

1st Normal Form. ELIMINATE REPEATING GROUPS
Make a separate table for each set of related attributes
Give each table a primary key

2nd Normal Form. ELIMINATE REDUNDANT DATA
If an attribute depends on only part of a multi-valued key
Remove it to a separate table

3rd Normal Form. ELIMINATE COLUMNS NOT DEPENDENT ON KEY
If attributes do not contribute to a description of the key,
Remove them to a separate table

4th Normal Form. ISOLATE INDEPENDENT MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
No table may contain two or more 1:n or n:m relationships that are not directly related

5th Normal Form. ISOLATE SEMANTICALLY RELATED MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
There may be practical constraints on information that justify separating logically related m:m relationships

It would be an interesting experiment to create a database of Types of Historical Data (Archeological & Literary) and define their attributes.

Of course, these are my interpretations or summarizations of the various authors cited. My own idiotic opinion is noted as mine and may not be entirely correct. But careful reading and reflection on these posts, especially the extracts from textbooks, is required to get a better understanding of how professional historians of social science approach their task, and the advantages or limitations of these approached.

Have Fun.

DCH

Iskander · 12-01-2012, 01:44 PM

This is silly

outhouse · 12-01-2012, 02:42 PM

Iskander · 12-01-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

consistency edit

No one knows anything about the boy,

It is a poisonous invention.

Toto · 12-01-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

This is silly

This makes no sense. What are you talking about? What is silly? Why?

DCHindley · 12-02-2012, 09:07 AM

I was musing over this part of the previous posts and here are a few thoughts about them

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

3. The procedures of historical research.3.1. Collection of data.
3.1.1. Notes.
3.1.1.1. Types of notes.
3.1.1.1.1. Bibliographical notes.
3.1.1.1.2. Subject notes. Items of information that may be used in the presentation of the data.

I'll have to admit that I have always had trouble taking bibliographical and subject notes. Even back in college, the notes I took served more as memorization aids than sources for later reference. However, I read and highlighted my textbooks and other required and suggested reading. I also paid attention in class lectures and asked questions.

Quote:

3.1.1.1.3. Method notes. Ideas which come to the researcher in the course of reading the material, such as new hypotheses, new places to seek out additional material, critical comments about reports under consideration, and general reactions to the document.

3.1.1.2. Media.
3.1.1.2.1. Record notes on cards (or a database that serves the purpose of cards).

When I get an idea, I open a document in MS Word or Excel, enter the relevant information (verbatim in Word, organized into a table in Excel) then ponder it for a short time before leaving it alone. I always keep my ideas in the back of my mind. As I chance upon things that seem they could relate to them, I add to the idea files.

Quote:

3.1.2. Data.
3.1.2.1. Types of data.
3.1.2.1.1. Consciously transmitted information.
3.1.2.1.2. Relics.
3.1.2.1.3. Memorials.
3.1.2.2. Sources of data.
3.1.2.2.1. Primary sources. Materials by eyewitnesses.
3.1.2.2.2. Secondary sources. Hearsay materials.

I am not so sure I agree with this organization, as I would place Sources of Data as a subset of Consciously transmitted information. Also, I would think Memorials should be a subset of Consciously transmitted data. Relics (archaeological artifacts that show where people had settled and how they lived) are unconsciously transmitted data. At any rate, these types of data can be prioritized and weighted in a way that helps us determine their relative value. Relics = 4, Memorials = 3, Primary literary sources = 2, Secondary literary sources = 1, etc. An explanation that incorporates Relics and Primary literary sources (4+2=6) outweighs one based on a Memorial and Secondary literary sources (3+1=4).

Quote:

3.2. Criticism of data.
3.2.1. Veracity of sources.
3.2.1.1. External aka Lower Criticism. Is the document under consideration a genuine one?
3.2.1.2. Internal aka Higher Criticism. Is the information contained in the document trustworthy (i.e., accurate, consistent, etc)?

So, one cannot do the above without both positive and negative criticism.

Quote:

3.2.1.2.1. Positive internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document was accurate, competent and acting in good faith (although keeping in mind that he may be speaking figuratively), and seek literal meaning of the statements of the document.
3.2.1.2.2. Negative internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document is fallible, foolish or faking and seeks evidence that this is not so.

In this board, it seems some only perform positive criticism, and others only negative criticism. It would be nice to see a little of both from the same persons.

Anyone else care to comment?

DCH

mountainman · 12-02-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Database developers will recognize the rules of data organization used to create data tables and their attributes.

......

It would be an interesting experiment to create a database of Types of Historical Data (Archeological & Literary) and define their attributes.

The fields of research which are tributaries in terms of their citations
to the generalised oceanic field of ancient history, are a numerously threaded weave.

I have used the following as a starting point ...

The "Evidential Bearing Fields" of Ancient History

Part (1): The "Literature Traditions"

the speakers - authors (particularly "historians") and their estimable historicity.

the words - ancient texts: their literature, its philology, and its translations.

the documents - physical written source - original texts (codexes, papyrii, papyrii fragments)

the historians - comments and analyses of the above by past and present ancient historians.

Part (2): The "Field Traditions"

architecture, buildings, monuments

inscriptions in stone and metal and mosaic - the epigraphic habit

sarcophagi, burial relics, funerary ornaments

coins (gold, silver and others)

art, paintings and graffitti

sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, ornamental works

archeological relics and other citations

Part (3): The "Analysis Support Traditions & newer technologies"

paleographic assessment of original texts, papyrii and papyrii fragments

radio carbon dating citations

collective and collaborative databases: epigraphic, numismatic, etc.

Toto · 12-04-2012, 04:15 PM

Richard Carrier has posted a video of a talk he gave on the historical method.

I think you will find it informative and amusing.

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

12-01-2012, 10:22 AM	#12
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Method, by me, (c) 2000 I) METHOD: A system of right procedure for the attainment of truth. 1) SYNTHETIC: starts from the simple and proceeds to the compound, or starts from the universal and proceeds to the particular. It is the method of composition (sunqesis) inasmuch as it puts together (sunqeinai, componere) the simple elements that form the form the complex or composite whole. 2) ANALYTIC: starts from the complex and proceeds to the simple, and from the particular to the universal (laws?). Its mode is analysis or resolution (analusis), in that it resolves (analuein, resolvere) the composite whole into its component elements. II) GENERAL LAWS OF METHOD, without reference to the special end which is proposed or attained: 1) Begin from what is near at hand and from there make our way to that which is remote, from the familiar to the unfamiliar, from what is easy to what is not easy. 2) Sound method is gradual. 3) Expect only that degree of certitude that our subject matter admits of. III PRACTICAL RULES OF METHOD: 1) Never employ any TERM unless it be UNDERSTOOD 2) DISTINGUISH clearly BETWEEN the ESSENTIAL AND ACCIDENTAL ELEMENTS in the matter discussed. 3) Very carefully SEPARATE OFF the VARIOUS PARTS OF THE QUESTION to be discussed one from another, AND FOLLOW THEM UP IN DETAIL UNTIL we have MASTERED the several parts of which the whole is composed. 4) PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: i) INVESTIGATING FOR OURSELVES with a view to the attainment of scientific knowledge: (1) WE HAVE BEFORE US COMPLEX KNOWLEDGE, the results of which are the combined results of a number of causes: (a) BY ANALYSIS, we break up our phenomenon and form an hypothesis as to its component parts: (b) BY SYNTHESIS, we test the hypothesis to determine whether the causes that are supposed to have produced it have really done so, and combine them together to see what the result will be. ii) COMMUNICATING KNOWLEDGE already in our posession to others: (1) STARTING WITH THE SIMPLE ELEMENTS (a) BY SYNTHESIS the simple elements are combined to exhibit the complex result they would produce together: (b) BY ANALYSIS show how known results were caused by the simple elements. DCH

12-01-2012, 10:28 AM	#13
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Ohhh! Lucky post #13!!! :constern01: Database developers will recognize the rules of data organization used to create data tables and their attributes. RULES OF DATA NORMALIZATION: Start with unnormalized data 1st Normal Form. ELIMINATE REPEATING GROUPS Make a separate table for each set of related attributes Give each table a primary key 2nd Normal Form. ELIMINATE REDUNDANT DATA If an attribute depends on only part of a multi-valued key Remove it to a separate table 3rd Normal Form. ELIMINATE COLUMNS NOT DEPENDENT ON KEY If attributes do not contribute to a description of the key, Remove them to a separate table 4th Normal Form. ISOLATE INDEPENDENT MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS No table may contain two or more 1:n or n:m relationships that are not directly related 5th Normal Form. ISOLATE SEMANTICALLY RELATED MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS There may be practical constraints on information that justify separating logically related m:m relationships It would be an interesting experiment to create a database of Types of Historical Data (Archeological & Literary) and define their attributes. Of course, these are my interpretations or summarizations of the various authors cited. My own idiotic opinion is noted as mine and may not be entirely correct. But careful reading and reflection on these posts, especially the extracts from textbooks, is required to get a better understanding of how professional historians of social science approach their task, and the advantages or limitations of these approached. Have Fun. DCH

12-01-2012, 01:44 PM	#14
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	This is silly

12-01-2012, 02:42 PM	#15
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	<removed>

12-04-2012, 04:15 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Richard Carrier has posted a video of a talk he gave on the historical method. I think you will find it informative and amusing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.