Philosophy of History Part I: Facts

[Resha Caner]

What do you think of the following: facts are minimalist; facts are contextual consensus.

 

[durangodawood]

What do you think of the following: facts are minimalist; facts are contextual consensus.

I dont know what you mean by those 2 items.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I dont know what you mean by those 2 items.

Ditto. Examples please.

 

[RDKirk]

What do you think of the following: facts are minimalist; facts are contextual consensus.

I'm not sure what someone means by "facts are minimalist," but I would agree in my own way that many of what we consider "facts" are really "contextual consensuses."

 

[durangodawood]

Here's where facts live:

 

[Resha Caner]

I thought examples might be necessary, so let's use this passage from Livy as a starting point. It describes Hannibal crossing the Alps - a rather famous event from ancient history.

What are some example facts in this passage? The process of answering that question will likely involve building a consensus. But a consensus among whom? Those involved in this conversation or professional historians (and what constitutes a professional historian)? So - likely the consensus will be contextual ... which further means the consensus will likely be a least common denominator - minimalist. Do you agree?

Livy, Book 21, Chapter 37, Paragraphs 1-4:
In the end it was obvious that men and animals alike were exhausted and getting nowhere. They set up a camp high on the mountainside, having cleared an area of snow with the greatest difficulty, since an enormous amount of it had to be dug out and carried away. The only way down was across the rock face, so the soldiers were brought in to build foundations for a track. This involved cutting away the rock, so they felled the large trees in the surrounding area, lopped off their branches, and built a huge pile of timber. They then set fire to it, getting considerable help from the strong wind, which fanned the flames. They then softened up the red-hot rocks by pouring vinegar (sour wine), into the cracks. They then broke up the heated rocks with crow bars and made the whole slope more manageable by creating a series of gentle S-bends down the hillside. As a result both the baggage animals and the elephants were able to be led down the mountain. They spent four days working their way down the cliff face, and by then the animals were nearly dead from starvation, since the high passes were almost totally devoid of vegetation and whatever fodder there might have been was buried under snow.

 

[durangodawood]

Historians have a list of criteria for determining the reliability of historical accounts, including:
Corroborating physical evidence
Multiple attestations
The known proximity of account writers
The known interests of account writers
etc.
Unfortunately we have none of that to examine for Livy account. I mean, it may well exist, but we dont have it to examine in this thread.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I thought examples might be necessary, so let's use this passage from Livy as a starting point. It describes Hannibal crossing the Alps - a rather famous event from ancient history.

What are some example facts in this passage? The process of answering that question will likely involve building a consensus. But a consensus among whom? Those involved in this conversation or professional historians (and what constitutes a professional historian)? So - likely the consensus will be contextual ... which further means the consensus will likely be a least common denominator - minimalist. Do you agree?

Livy, Book 21, Chapter 37, Paragraphs 1-4:
In the end it was obvious that men and animals alike were exhausted and getting nowhere. They set up a camp high on the mountainside, having cleared an area of snow with the greatest difficulty, since an enormous amount of it had to be dug out and carried away. The only way down was across the rock face, so the soldiers were brought in to build foundations for a track. This involved cutting away the rock, so they felled the large trees in the surrounding area, lopped off their branches, and built a huge pile of timber. They then set fire to it, getting considerable help from the strong wind, which fanned the flames. They then softened up the red-hot rocks by pouring vinegar (sour wine), into the cracks. They then broke up the heated rocks with crow bars and made the whole slope more manageable by creating a series of gentle S-bends down the hillside. As a result both the baggage animals and the elephants were able to be led down the mountain. They spent four days working their way down the cliff face, and by then the animals were nearly dead from starvation, since the high passes were almost totally devoid of vegetation and whatever fodder there might have been was buried under snow.

Given that a "fact" is a true statement about reality, I can't recognize any of it as factual, because I can't currently determine the above to be true. If it is all true, then those facts don't rely on a consensus of belief to be facts.

Are you asking about the nature of belief in a proposed fact rather than the fact itself?

 

[Resha Caner]

.

 

[Resha Caner]

Historians have a list of criteria for determining the reliability of historical accounts, including:
Corroborating physical evidence
Multiple attestations
The known proximity of account writers
The known interests of account writers
etc.
Unfortunately we have none of that to examine for Livy account. I mean, it may well exist, but we dont have it to examine in this thread.

I can give you other accounts of Hannibal, the dates they were purportedly written, and information about the author's lives. Once we all have those, if we were to study that data independently and then reconvene, would we all produce exactly the same list of facts?

I am not aware of any physical evidence of elephants in the Alps, etc. Does that mean these accounts have no facts?

 

[Resha Caner]

Are you asking about the nature of belief in a proposed fact rather than the fact itself?

No. I asked for your comments on the phrases in the OP.

Given that a "fact" is a true statement about reality ...

That just kicks the can down the road, begging the question: What is truth? It doesn't solve anything.

If it is all true, then those facts don't rely on a consensus of belief to be facts.

So are "fact" and "truth" exact synonyms, or are there differences? What is the means for determining truth?

 

[Resha Caner]

Historians have a list of criteria for determining the reliability of historical accounts, including:
Corroborating physical evidence
Multiple attestations
The known proximity of account writers
The known interests of account writers
etc.
Unfortunately we have none of that to examine for Livy account. I mean, it may well exist, but we dont have it to examine in this thread.

I can give you other accounts of Hannibal, the dates they were written, information about the author's lives, etc. Once everyone here has these, if we studied them independently would we return with the exact same list of facts?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That just kicks the can down the road, begging the question: What is truth? It doesn't solve anything.

That's not begging the question at all. Something that's true is existent in reality. A fact is a statement that describes something that's true. Here's a statement that I know to be a fact:

"The clock on the computer I'm currently using appears to me to be showing '4:16 PM'."

What is the means for determining truth?

You mean as close as we can come to determine what is existent in reality? Evidence.

 

[durangodawood]

I can give you other accounts of Hannibal, the dates they were purportedly written, and information about the author's lives. Once we all have those, if we were to study that data independently and then reconvene, would we all produce exactly the same list of facts?

I am not aware of any physical evidence of elephants in the Alps, etc. Does that mean these accounts have no facts?

If we had the same sources, and agreed on the criteria for historical reliabilty (which are well reasoned), then we'd mostly agree on the facts, I think. Dont you?

As for elephants, what you and I are currently aware of is probably not remotely definitive of the available evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

If we had the same sources, and agreed on the criteria for historical reliabilty (which are well reasoned), then we'd mostly agree on the facts, I think. Dont you?

As for elephants, what you and I are currently aware of is probably not remotely definitive of the available evidence.

Completely agree.

This is a strange thread.

 

[RDKirk]

Historians have a list of criteria for determining the reliability of historical accounts, including:
Corroborating physical evidence
Multiple attestations
The known proximity of account writers
The known interests of account writers
etc.
Unfortunately we have none of that to examine for Livy account. I mean, it may well exist, but we dont have it to examine in this thread.

But the historians concerned with creating a history of Hannibal would have what evidence is available and from it they would come to a consensus of what elements they're going to consider "factual."

 

[Resha Caner]

A fact is a statement that describes something that's true. Here's a statement that I know to be a fact:

So is that your basis? It's what you know? I ask because the clock on my computer doesn't say 4:16 PM. What evidence do you have to support your statement? I guess it wouldn't matter if you're not trying to convince me - if it's only about what is convincing to you.

 

[Resha Caner]

If we had the same sources, and agreed on the criteria for historical reliabilty (which are well reasoned), then we'd mostly agree on the facts, I think. Dont you?

No. It is typical of my history classes that we each read a document separately and then post our interpretations of facts, conclusions, etc. Differences among us are the rule, not the exception ... unless you get down to that minimal list.

As for elephants, what you and I are currently aware of is probably not remotely definitive of the available evidence.

I won't say I know it all, but I'm familiar with a good portion of it. Regardless, for the sake of this discussion I'm willing to consider our collective knowledge on the subject to be complete. You wanted an example.

If you don't like mine, propose your own example of a historical fact. I'm OK with that. The purpose was to use the example to explore the OP.

 

[Resha Caner]

But the historians concerned with creating a history of Hannibal would have what evidence is available and from it they would come to a consensus of what elements they're going to consider "factual."

Exactly.

 

[durangodawood]

No. It is typical of my history classes that we each read a document separately and then post our interpretations of facts, conclusions, etc. Differences among us are the rule, not the exception ... unless you get down to that minimal list.

Interpretations and conclusions are not what you asked about. You asked about facts. I'll bet you'd all be much closer together on the facts.

Like RDK said, to which you agreed, youd all probably come to some consensus on the facts.