Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 02-11-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Family Man

Vork, Bede is right, though you also have to consider the nature of the text. If the sober tone is maintained and the events related dispassionately, it would have to be considered reliable. Of course, if it starts discussing the ancient equivalent of alien abductions, then the entire first paragraph is put into a different light. It's one thing to be skeptical; it's quite another to overdo it.

<shrug> Davila's lecture on Aristeas is here. It's essentially the same kind of nonsense detail one finds in the remarks of Epiphanius, cited on that page as especially wild:

EPIPHANIUS (c. 315-403; in _On Weights and Measures_ 3-11) has the wildest version of story. It is partly dependent on Aristeas, but is full of detail about how Ptolemy shut the translators up in pairs and took strict measures to keep them from collusion (even giving them separate cooks, and skylights rather than windows).

It is obvious from this remark in the text above:

297 But it is unseemly to misrepresent facts which are recorded in the public archives. And it would not be right for me to transgress in such a matter as this. I tell the story just as it happened, conscientiously avoiding any error.

...that whatever is related in the letter is bullshit. The overdone reference to the minutes of the King's business along with the fairy-tale claim (..."and the rock is still there to this day!" ..."and the river still runs backward in that one spot!" ..."and if you look in the public records, you'll see it!") and the pious claim that he's relating things just as they happened are strong signals that the writer is attempting to create support for his account.

Quote:

It's one thing to be skeptical; it's quite another to overdo it

Let's just say: I'll stand on my record on that one.

Edited

Quote:

To cintune my anology, the Jesus Mysteries is supplied with copious notes and is fantasy from start to finish.

Edited

Vorkosigan

[MOD HAT=ON]Come on, Vork, let's keep the personal stuff out of it. Attack the argument, not the poster.[/MOD HAT]

Roger Pearse · 02-12-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Which reminds me of the joke about the man who wanted to go to a masquerade party as Adam, so he sent away to a costume company for a suitable leaf, but when it came he embarrassedly thought it was too small. He therefore sent it back for a larger one to cover his requirements, which arrived, but sadly it too was too small to cover his requirements. In this manner he went through the full range of leaves without success, so he wrote to ask for a custom leaf to cover his requirements. The costume company wrote back saying that they didn't make custom costumes. It recommended that he throw his requirements over his shoulder and go as a petrol pump.

Thank you for that rare commodity in this forum, something intentionally and successfully humorous.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

lpetrich · 02-12-2005, 02:20 PM

As an aside, I note:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letter to Aristeas

... [about the Jews] since as I have been at pains to discover, the God who gave them their law is the God who maintains your kingdom. They worship the same God - the Lord and Creator of the Universe, as all other men, as we ourselves, O king, though we call him by different names, such as Zeus or Dis. This name was very appropriately bestowed upon him by our first ancestors, in order to signify that He through whom all things are endowed with life and come into being, is necessarily the ruler and lord of the Universe. ...

PhilosopherJay · 02-12-2005, 02:49 PM

Hi All,

People can just as easily tell the truth as tell lies.
I think one does have to study the tone and structure of texts carefully and make judgment based on that.

A few years ago at a party, I met an elderly woman who told me that she often saw Albert Einstein at Princeton, growing up in New Jersey in the 1930's. She said that he was very kind and would often buy the children ice-cream cones. However she was afraid of him as he looked funny and would never wear socks, even in the winter. I do not doubt her story.

On the other hand, if she had said that she overheard Einstein talking with Franklin Roosevelt about building atomic bombs or something that had direct political-ideological implications, I would have been entirely sceptical.

Aristeas is a piece of rhetoric for me rather than an historical report. Admitting the improbability of your improbable tale is a basic rule of rhetoric.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Agemegos · 02-12-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I didn't remember any exact numbers that Dr. Rietveld said in class. What I did remember was how Rietveld said that he had to have mother (emphasis original) drive him to see the old gentleman. I said 16, while Rietveld would have said 14. I don't believe that he said "80s or 90s"--that is what I said.

Peter: It seems that the number of 88 (on the web page) is wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby

Well, now I place absolutely no credence in the story. The original has a demonstable impossibility (88 in 1952, born in 1864, Lincoln killed in '65.) The version you told includes admitted suppositions and elaborations. The whole thing is completely useless as evidence even that an old man ever told such a story. And if an old man had actually told that story I would have doubted it anyway: factitious memory of yout is common in the old.

So in answer to your question, I place no belief whatsoever in the story of the figs.

Peter Kirby · 02-12-2005, 05:32 PM

Oh ye of little faith!

I hope that this exercise has been useful to some small degree in understanding what we practice in "historiography" ... or at least slightly amusing.

Perhaps we should take it from the other end now. What are some cases in which the testimony is reliable?

And, since I know nothing about Bede's example, perhaps Bede could share what his verdict on it is.

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-12-2005, 05:55 PM

Peter, The Abraham Lincoln story reminds of the Irenaeus-Polycarp-John connection. Did you have that in mind when you posed the question?

Peter Kirby · 02-12-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Peter, The Abraham Lincoln story reminds of the Irenaeus-Polycarp-John connection. Did you have that in mind when you posed the question?

No, I was thinking of hearsay generally.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13 · 02-12-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Perhaps we should take it from the other end now. What are some cases in which the testimony is reliable?

Cases in which hearsay testimony absent any supportive evidence is considered reliable? I would say there are none given that even eyewitnesses can't be trusted to get it right.

Peter Kirby · 02-12-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Cases in which hearsay testimony absent any supportive evidence is considered reliable? I would say there are none given that even eyewitnesses can't be trusted to get it right.

How reliable is 'reliable'?

From a different angle, what is the purpose of 'reliability'? Why are we judging whether something is reliable? What are we relying on it for?

If eyewitnesses can't be trusted, and that is the reason for regarding a second-hand account as 'unreliable', then is that not also a reason for regarding eyewitness testimony as 'unreliable'?

Three separate questions, all are invited to answer any or none.

best,
Peter Kirby

02-12-2005, 02:49 PM	#24
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Judgements Hi All, People can just as easily tell the truth as tell lies. I think one does have to study the tone and structure of texts carefully and make judgment based on that. A few years ago at a party, I met an elderly woman who told me that she often saw Albert Einstein at Princeton, growing up in New Jersey in the 1930's. She said that he was very kind and would often buy the children ice-cream cones. However she was afraid of him as he looked funny and would never wear socks, even in the winter. I do not doubt her story. On the other hand, if she had said that she overheard Einstein talking with Franklin Roosevelt about building atomic bombs or something that had direct political-ideological implications, I would have been entirely sceptical. Aristeas is a piece of rhetoric for me rather than an historical report. Admitting the improbability of your improbable tale is a basic rule of rhetoric. Warmly, Philosopher Jay

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

02-12-2005, 05:32 PM	#26
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Oh ye of little faith! I hope that this exercise has been useful to some small degree in understanding what we practice in "historiography" ... or at least slightly amusing. Perhaps we should take it from the other end now. What are some cases in which the testimony is reliable? And, since I know nothing about Bede's example, perhaps Bede could share what his verdict on it is. best, Peter Kirby

02-12-2005, 05:55 PM	#27
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Peter, The Abraham Lincoln story reminds of the Irenaeus-Polycarp-John connection. Did you have that in mind when you posed the question?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.