Historical facts, theories and guesses

[mindlight]

As a Christian I believe there are 3 main methods of working out truth. Each one of These methods are different but effective in their own way.

1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.

2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.

3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.

So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.

So my questions are These:

1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory

2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events

3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.

 

[A_Thinker]

As a Christian I believe there are 3 main methods of working out truth. Each one of These methods are different but effective in their own way.

1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.

2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.

3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.

So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.

So my questions are These:

1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory

2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events

3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.

History and science are different arenas.

History is an effort to establish a record of happenings on Earth ... or involving humanity.

What significant events occurred in 325 BC, 1960 AD, etc ?

When was George Washington president ?

Science is an effort to explain what we see and experience in the world around us.

For instance ...

What is the composition of the air that we breathe ?

What is the explanation for why we are pulled to the side ... when our car goes around a curve ?

 

[mindlight]

History and science are different arenas.

History is an effort to establish a record of happenings on Earth ... or involving humanity.

What significant events occurred in 325 BC, 1960 AD, etc ?

When was George Washington president ?

Science is an effort to explain what we see and experience in the world around us.

For instance ...

What is the composition of the air that we breathe ?

What is the explanation for why we are pulled to the side ... when our car goes around a curve ?

You seem to view history as a sequence of Events set inside a time Framework. So names and Dates and places become the all important criteria of historical description. But why was Napoleon defeated by Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo 1815 and why did the Joint French and Spanish navies lose to the British fleet at Trafalgar 1805 is also an historical question. So the why of things and an analysis of the cause, meaning and Impact of Events is also part of the historical Investigation. This is why the historical method is essentially the one employed by the legal process to establish guilt or innocence for instance. Man Motive and Weopan being all part of the consideration.

Scientific theories do attempt to explain the physical world around us, but say little about its cultural, spiritual and human dimensions for instance. But science can set clear boundaries to what is a credible statement and what not. So for example a court might use DNA evidence or Quote scientific experts in establishing the historical truth of a matter in a particular case.

 

[A_Thinker]

So the why of things and an analysis of the cause, meaning and Impact of Events is also part of the historical Investigation. This is why the historical method is essentially the one employed by the legal process to establish guilt or innocence for instance. Man Motive and Weopan being all part of the consideration.

I didn't purposely omit the "WHY" questions ... only gave a few examples.

Every investigator knows that you look for the "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, and WHEN" ...

Scientific theories do attempt to explain the physical world around us, but say little about its cultural, spiritual and human dimensions for instance.

Science does touch on these other arenas (psychology, and sociology, for example), but is mainly concerned with the PHYSICAL WORLD.

 

[dqhall]

As a Christian I believe there are 3 main methods of working out truth. Each one of These methods are different but effective in their own way.

1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.

2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.

3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.

So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.

So my questions are These:

1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory

2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events

3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.

Archaeology is a science used by historians. Clay tablets with text inscribed on them were uncovered at Ras Shamra, Syria from before the Iron Age. They recorded myths about El, Baal and others. Austen Layard excavated the Assyrian palaces of Ashurbanipal and Sennacherib in Nineveh. They discovered Assyrian cuneiform libraries confirming parts of 2 Kings in the Bible. Archaeologists excavated the remains of the Roman era Pool(s) of Bethesda near St. Stephen’s Gate in Jerusalem. This helped with a Gospel geographical itinerary.

Archaeologists learned to date city ruin layers by the styles of clay pots found there. More recently they used scientific method to Carbon 14 date city layers.

Science can shed light on the Bible showing some parts are fact and some parts are fiction.

Theology might lead one to holiness or damnation depending on what school of thought one accepts.

 

[Uber Genius]

As a Christian I believe there are 3 main methods of working out truth. Each one of These methods are different but effective in their own way.

1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.

2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.

3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.

So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.

So my questions are These:

1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory

2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events

3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.

Like the conversation.

Truth may not be what is aimed at technically here. Knowledge is what we are aiming at I think.

So epistemically (study of knowledge) would involve truth.

Beliefs vs knowledge

a belief + it being true+ justification (reasons why it is true) seems to be a standard epistemic baseline.

The distinctions you made above seem helpful. Certainly there are science claims at knowledge that go beyond the testable such as inferences at multiverse, or evolution, or dark energy. So we would need to broaden the categories so we could properly analyze various claims.

Historical sciences like history in general must be weaker that say chemistry experiments. Just because we find a way now that could work in a lab doesn't mean that we have discovered the historical cause and effect. We have found a cause and effect. So things like the Miller-Urey experiment were held as sacrosanct until science proved that the early earth environment was not anything like what the MU experiment required. So we need different levels of knowledge claims even in science. In fact the multiverse would be one of the least credible claims not just in science but of most history.

Derived to rid atheistic astrophysicists from the natural conclusions of the fine-tuning problem, they created the only possible scenario that might save them. They then produced the science, which is untestable as universes would never interact.

So try moving this into one of the christian apologetic forums where discussion of history, science, religion, and how do we look at the rules for knowledge claims, are routinely discussed.

 

[dqhall]

Like the conversation.

Truth may not be what is aimed at technically here. Knowledge is what we are aiming at I think.

So epistemically (study of knowledge) would involve truth.

Beliefs vs knowledge

a belief + it being true+ justification (reasons why it is true) seems to be a standard epistemic baseline.

The distinctions you made above seem helpful. Certainly there are science claims at knowledge that go beyond the testable such as inferences at multiverse, or evolution, or dark energy. So we would need to broaden the categories so we could properly analyze various claims.

Historical sciences like history in general must be weaker that say chemistry experiments. Just because we find a way now that could work in a lab doesn't mean that we have discovered the historical cause and effect. We have found a cause and effect. So things like the Miller-Urey experiment were held as sacrosanct until science proved that the early earth environment was not anything like what the MU experiment required. So we need different levels of knowledge claims even in science. In fact the multiverse would be one of the least credible claims not just in science but of most history.

Derived to rid atheistic astrophysicists from the natural conclusions of the fine-tuning problem, they created the only possible scenario that might save them. They then produced the science, which is untestable as universes would never interact.

So try moving this into one of the christian apologetic forums where discussion of history, science, religion, and how do we look at the rules for knowledge claims, are routinely discussed.

Christian apologetics may be biased towards inerrancy theories. Evolution saw mutations from generation to generation. It could not disprove an omnipotent being bringing about intelligent life on earth. He gave sight to the blind, healed the sick and raised Lazarus.

 

[Uber Genius]

Christian apologetics may be biased towards inerrancy theories.

So I started a couple out on the Outreach Christian Apologetics forum that are epistemic in nature,

Tricks Atheists Play 5 and 6.

Since Biblical claims aren't accepted by nonbelievers, I don't use any arguments based on premises that rely on Biblical revelation.

But there are a lot of arguments that argue from propositions that most scientists would grant.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
therefore the universe had a cause

From there one argues that elements can be the cause of like elements:

time can't rely on time
space can't rely on space
matter must come from something that is immaterial

So the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and be powerful enough to create all we see, and knowledgeable to create it as fine-tuned for life as we have discovered.

So we start with premises we all agree are true.

 

[mindlight]

Archaeology is a science used by historians. Clay tablets with text inscribed on them were uncovered at Ras Shamra, Syria from before the Iron Age. They recorded myths about El, Baal and others. Austen Layard excavated the Assyrian palaces of Ashurbanipal and Sennacherib in Nineveh. They discovered Assyrian cuneiform libraries confirming parts of 2 Kings in the Bible. Archaeologists excavated the remains of the Roman era Pool(s) of Bethesda near St. Stephen’s Gate in Jerusalem. This helped with a Gospel geographical itinerary.

Archaeologists learned to date city ruin layers by the styles of clay pots found there. More recently they used scientific method to Carbon 14 date city layers.

Science can shed light on the Bible showing some parts are fact and some parts are fiction.

Theology might lead one to holiness or damnation depending on what school of thought one accepts.

Yes archaeology can help add circumstantial context. Also it may give more insight as to why it was necessary to write down a true account in Opposition to deceptive myths already in circulation.

Carbon 14 dating is not entirely reliable after a certain date. There are no parts of the bible that are fictional in the sense of not true

 

[mindlight]

The distinctions you made above seem helpful. Certainly there are science claims at knowledge that go beyond the testable such as inferences at multiverse, or evolution, or dark energy. So we would need to broaden the categories so we could properly analyze various claims.

Historical sciences like history in general must be weaker that say chemistry experiments. Just because we find a way now that could work in a lab doesn't mean that we have discovered the historical cause and effect. We have found a cause and effect. So things like the Miller-Urey experiment were held as sacrosanct until science proved that the early earth environment was not anything like what the MU experiment required. So we need different levels of knowledge claims even in science. In fact the multiverse would be one of the least credible claims not just in science but of most history.

If even a recent Event like the battle of Waterloo is better analysed using the historical method I wonder why we trust science to take us back billions of years with theories like chemical Evolution, biological Evolution, big bang. There are no witnesses nor experiments we can use to verify our findings and no way of affirming our evidential Audit trails in These cases. As you say the Formation of amino acids using an electric current proves nothing since we do not have a clue of what the original mix of the Environment was like and because this is not life.

 

[mindlight]

Christian apologetics may be biased towards inerrancy theories. Evolution saw mutations from generation to generation. It could not disprove an omnipotent being bringing about intelligent life on earth. He gave sight to the blind, healed the sick and raised Lazarus.

Adaptive Change is not Evolution as understood by many modern scientists. Not sure what you mean by inerrancy theories. Scripture as originally given and properly understood is a reliable revelation of Gods truth

 

[mindlight]

So I started a couple out on the Outreach Christian Apologetics forum that are epistemic in nature,

Tricks Atheists Play 5 and 6.

Since Biblical claims aren't accepted by nonbelievers, I don't use any arguments based on premises that rely on Biblical revelation.

But there are a lot of arguments that argue from propositions that most scientists would grant.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
therefore the universe had a cause

From there one argues that elements can be the cause of like elements:

time can't rely on time
space can't rely on space
matter must come from something that is immaterial

So the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and be powerful enough to create all we see, and knowledgeable to create it as fine-tuned for life as we have discovered.

So we start with premises we all agree are true.

There are discussions that can be had using the scientific or historical method that would not require scriptural Affirmation e.g. we can affirm the existence of Pontius Pilate or indeed Jesus using historical sources and witnesses. We can affirm the existence of the moon and its orbital path using trigonometry and spaceships to a Point where only a complete fool could deny this regardless of their faith posiiton.

The first cause / prime mover Argument is a Logical one that also could take unbelievers a part of the way to realising the credibility of the Notion that God exists but has nothing to do with the historical method as there are no available sources or witnesses that do not require we trust Revelation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"History is a series of lies agreed upon" - attributed to Napoleon.

History is about narrative. It is the story of mankind, essentially. It derives from the Greeks, Herodotus specifically, from where people tried to get a coherent account. In many cultures, history is not that way at all. To most people, everything before your grandfather gets mushed together in a generic 'before' - like the Aboriginal Dream-Time. A good way to see this, is popular ways of looking at the mediaeval period or the ancients - a mash-up of different peoples and things from different times.
Most people lack a sense of history: they assume people in the past thought and acted as they did and in extreme examples are highly anachronistic (such as mediaeval paintings depicting Biblical stories in contemporary dress and settings). The past is a foreign land, and far different even than the culture shock we experience when travelling today.

So history is very much dependant on who is telling it, as any good story is. For we are ascribing motives or causes here. Proper historic method tries to take these types of things into account, so someone mentioning an event incidentally, increases the chance it really happened, than someone who might be presenting a biased account.

At heart though, history is based on written sources, since it is a narration of human actions. Archaeology and such can be used to judge between the merits of written sources that disagree with one another; or can be used to create a new written source based on conjecture and hypothesis from them. Otherwise they stand mute, only with value within a framework of historic narrative. Nowadays, we try and weave as unbiased one as we can, but implicit biases are inescapable.

So Waterloo is an Historic Fact, because the narrative of Waterloo is universally taken to have occured - and backed-up by documents and archaeology. If someone was to create a viable narrative model that presented it as an elaborate fake, then it would no longer be considered 'fact'. In general, history comes down to how much trust is put in primary written material, as everything that is not written has to be evaluated in light of the written sources; or if no written sources, a speculative reconstruction is undertaken, which will inevitably be conjectural.

 

[Uber Genius]

There are discussions that can be had using the scientific or historical method that would not require scriptural Affirmation e.g. we can affirm the existence of Pontius Pilate or indeed Jesus using historical sources and witnesses. We can affirm the existence of the moon and its orbital path using trigonometry and spaceships to a Point where only a complete fool could deny this regardless of their faith posiiton.

The first cause / prime mover Argument is a Logical one that also could take unbelievers a part of the way to realising the credibility of the Notion that God exists but has nothing to do with the historical method as there are no available sources or witnesses that do not require we trust Revelation.

Yes to Pontius and I often make my historical appeals based on Pliny, Tacitus, and Josephus, but all scholars agree that the gospels are historical accounts.

Yes the epistemic nature of knowledge claims requiring sense, introspection, memory, testimony, and rationality (logic), was why I was suggesting a move to the apologetics forum. It is much broader than history alone and would get more discussion.

Have you looked at Lydia McGrew's work on the unintended coincidences in the historical accounts of Jesus' ministry?

 

[Uber Genius]

If even a recent Event like the battle of Waterloo is better analysed using the historical method I wonder why we trust science to take us back billions of years with theories like chemical Evolution, biological Evolution, big bang. There are no witnesses nor experiments we can use to verify our findings and no way of affirming our evidential Audit trails in These cases. As you say the Formation of amino acids using an electric current proves nothing since we do not have a clue of what the original mix of the Environment was like and because this is not life.

Yes, well science has its own epistemology, or philosophy of science. This is where I like to spend time helping non theists understand that what counts as knowledge in Chemistry or other "Hard" sciences is extremely different than that in the "Historical" sciences like evolution, archeology,cosmogony, geology, paleontology, etc. Which is different still than theoretical physics, cosmology, etc.

So it may be the case that we can use some math to describe our universe, such as the prediction by Peter Higgs of the Higgs Boson particle 30 years before it was verified. However, a large number of hypotheses that are mathematically inferred such as the inflationary model of the Big Bang are not confirmed. So while some portions of inflationary theory are the bedrock of Big Bang Cosmology, other inferences in the model have been falsified (according to its inventor Alan Guth).

So I try and get people recognizing limits of knowledge and then point out the entailments of their overreaching knowledge or skepticism claims if applied equally to all their knowledge claims.

This takes work, and patience. Most infidels give up due to lack of comprehension at their inconsistency, or lack of sincerity.

 

[straykat]

Yes, well science has its own epistemology, or philosophy of science. This is where I like to spend time helping non theists understand that what counts as knowledge in Chemistry or other "Hard" sciences is extremely different than that in the "Historical" sciences like evolution, archeology,cosmogony, geology, paleontology, etc. Which is different still than theoretical physics, cosmology, etc.

So it may be the case that we can use some math to describe our universe, such as the prediction by Peter Higgs of the Higgs Boson particle 30 years before it was verified. However, a large number of hypotheses that are mathematically inferred such as the inflationary model of the Big Bang are not confirmed. So while some portions of inflationary theory are the bedrock of Big Bang Cosmology, other inferences in the model have been falsified (according to its inventor Alan Guth).

So I try and get people recognizing limits of knowledge and then point out the entailments of their overreaching knowledge or skepticism claims if applied equally to all their knowledge claims.

This takes work, and patience. Most infidels give up due to lack of comprehension at their inconsistency, or lack of sincerity.

Ironically, I'm gonna have to bust out Carl Sagan on what qualifies as good scientific epistemology (which is Empiricism). Even though I don't line up with a lot of his thinking, I appreciate his dislike of relying on Rationalism below. It's been a problem both for the religious or scientific:

 

[Uber Genius]

Ironically, I'm gonna have to bust out Carl Sagan on what qualifies as good scientific epistemology (which is Empiricism). Even though I don't line up with a lot of his thinking, I appreciate his dislike of relying on Rationalism below. It's been a problem both for the religious or scientific:

Instead of religious and scientific I would suggest that a the accumulation of knowledge led to the British empiricists who reacted against rationalism.

Unfortunately, Sagan was a philosophical naturalist and a logical positivist. He also ignored his own advice when advocating for SETI without any experimental or scientific evidence pointing to extraterrestrial life.

As for religious epistemology, we have access to resources that include memory, introspection, senses, rationality, and testimony. These are often utilized in the development of scientific inferences before they are tested. Of course if we want to require experimentation as a methodological standard, then we would have to throw out significant amounts of cosmology, some QM theories, multiverse, all historical sciences like anthropology and evolution.

I did enjoy Carl Sagan's show when I was in highschool and read his book "Billions and Billions." When I was in grad school I looked at his work with 6 years of college under my belt and reversed my opinion. He was entertaining though.

 

[straykat]

Instead of religious and scientific I would suggest that a the accumulation of knowledge led to the British empiricists who reacted against rationalism.

Unfortunately, Sagan was a philosophical naturalist and a logical positivist. He also ignored his own advice when advocating for SETI without any experimental or scientific evidence pointing to extraterrestrial life.

As for religious epistemology, we have access to resources that include memory, introspection, senses, rationality, and testimony. These are often utilized in the development of scientific inferences before they are tested. Of course if we want to require experimentation as a methodological standard, then we would have to throw out significant amounts of cosmology, some QM theories, multiverse, all historical sciences like anthropology and evolution.

I did enjoy Carl Sagan's show when I was in highschool and read his book "Billions and Billions." When I was in grad school I looked at his work with 6 years of college under my belt and reversed my opinion. He was entertaining though.

Yeah.. this is why I felt it was ironic to post him. Modern science is not immune to relying on Rationalism and merely playing around with mental models. Even the Big Bang itself (sans Creator and relying on "chance") has no basis in experimentation.. and I'm not convinced it has any basis on a theoretical level even. I've yet to witness even a small experiment where someone produced matter through mere chance.