Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see these as only the starting point for a discussion. If you're claiming some sort of authority for these phrases within the discipline of history, I'd like to know what that is. Your use of "fact" does not correlate to its use in my historiography classes. The terms "reality" and "true" are not ones I've seen definitively established as part of historiography.
You sound like a minimalist. That's good to know, as it helps me judge the potential this conversation has. So, I'll ask the question: What value does ancient history have? To better explore that question, I ask you to provide an example.
You still sound Platonist. You speak of the term "evidence" as if it is self-evident - a Form. Again, examples would help.
I don't particularly care what you're learning in class.
I'm telling you what the definitions mean in the context of how I understand them.
If your definition of "fact" is something different, or you think that there is a "historical fact" that differs from an everyday "fact", then I'll need to know what it is.
My answer is "Who cares? What's the consequence of believing one over the other, or believing neither?".
You're either misunderstanding me or what a Platonist is. I'm far from being a Platonist. Evidence is a term to apply to a piece of information that is used to build a case in establishing a statement to be true. It's not a form in any sense at all.
So what DO historians do with the question of the elephants?
Then you've ceded any chance of convincing me of your position. If you don't care about my position, this is not a discussion - it's you talking at me. Maybe you don't care. If so, good to know.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. There is a difference between colloquial use and the use of words within specific disciplines. I think it's going to make it difficult for you to interpret what historians are saying if you don't understand their methods and how they use certain terms. FYI, I have a BA in history and I'm about 1/3 of the way through my MA program, but ... whatever.
I've tried to explain, but I don't see the point of giving you anything more when you say you're not interested in my learning and you won't provide any examples of your own.
Why do you need evidence? Isn't it true whether you have evidence or not? IOW, it's truth is independent of the evidence.
You started out by seemingly implying that consensus has something to do with a statement being an actual fact instead of conjecture. I'm saying it doesn't, since that entails a logical fallacy no matter what your field of study is.
I'll try again. Evidence is necessary to establish that a statement is a fact. The statement "That man died 150 years ago from a heavy blow to the head." needs at least the following forensic evidence:
So what DO historians do with the question of the elephants?
Is that the same as "we may as well consider it to be" a historical event?I can't say I've taken a poll or done a survey of all the opinions in the literature. But, I imagine most historians would say there is no reason to reject it as a historical event.
That's not what I meant, so I doubt the logical fallacy you have in mind (whatever it is) applies.
1) Why is this evidence sufficient for you? I can think of reasons why each of those 3 criteria could be misleading.
2) Why is this evidence necessary for you? If that is what you require, then we have no facts of the deaths of billions of people. Maybe my great-great-grandfather is still alive.
It comes down to this: First, there is no definitive method. You can state what works for you, but that doesn't obligate professional historians to adhere to your requirements.
I'm saying that given the position you're taking, your answer is not sufficient for me. If you don't care about convincing me, we can move on. Otherwise, you need to answer: Who decides it's a fact?
Your answer has been: evidence. But that isn't getting the job done. A group presents evidence and says: This is sufficient for us to conclude this is a fact. Another group says: No, that is not sufficient evidence. Who breaks the tie?
Is that the same as "we may as well consider it to be" a historical event?
Seems like historians need a scale of factuality. Something like:Pretty much. It's the historian's way of saying, "I believe it is historical, but I will do my best to honestly consider arguments to the contrary." Or in others words, "I believe it to be the best position given the known evidence, but future evidence could change that position." The first way is just more succinct.
Why is it necessary to establish that a skeleton is male before verifying a statement saying that the skeleton is male? You're not seriously asking me that are you?
And why on earth would you have a reason to believe your great great grandfather is still alive? Do you have evidence of this?
There is a definitive process to determine if any piece of evidence is valid. And it can be evaluated by anyone with a cursory background in Philosophy, regardless of their profession. If that evidence is shown to include a logical fallacy, then it can be thrown out. You can agree to that, correct?
No one decides something is a fact. That's ridiculous. People individually accept or do not accept a statement as a fact.
That's why the consensus by itself is meaningless. The only things that matter are the reasons behind the opinions of the consensus. You seem to be deifying the consensus itself.
No one. Why do you think you would need to?
Seems like historians need a scale of factuality. Something like:
1. Historical fact
2. Plausible narrative
3. Not plausible narrative
With item 1 broken into a few gradations.
I wasnt suggesting the numbers illustrate an actual quantitative assessment, but just the order from high to low reliability.There's no official scale, but there is an informal one. For example, a historian might refer to a particular figure as mythical, legendary, or historical. That indicates their level of confidence. There are other such terms indicating levels of confidence. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, history is not a hard science. So, we can't assign numerical confidence bands.
I wasnt suggesting the numbers illustrate an actual quantitative assessment, but just the order from high to low reliability.
Could you differentiate for us fact – truth – reality? In their essence I see them as the same. A fact that is not true is not a fact. Is this not a fact?
What you say here deserves more time than I can give it tonight.I contend historical fact is not the same thing as scientific fact, etc. The things we receive from God through theology are "truths". The collection of all our facts and truths is reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?