Philosophy of History Part I: Facts

afishamongmany said:

What you say here deserves more time than I can give it tonight.

Click to expand...

There's no rush.

afishamongmany said:

Your paralleling of the disciplines of history and science causes me to ask, should not all the knowledge disciplines be considered as science? When it comes down to it, is not science just a methodology which can be used in any field of “finding out” and does not “finding out” always eventually lead to practical ends?

... Is there really any important difference between historical facts and a scientific facts, as pieces of information? What is it?

Click to expand...

The differences are very important. Science always involves a test of the objective in one form or another. Either I am "testing" the mathematical structure of a model where the axioms and theorems are known (solving a differential equation works the same way every time) or I am testing nature (gravity doesn't lie to me). I'm not saying scientific tests are perfect, but only that there is something objective being tested.

Such is not the case in history. I can't tell whether Livy was truthful by testing the pH of the ink he used or by bouncing radio waves off the paper, etc. There is nothing objective to test. What about the "facts" you may ask? One of my points all along has been that facts are much more basic than people seem to realize. Facts don't tell a story. They are simply units of data - not even information.

If you think otherwise, give me a sample list of facts and the associated historical narrative, and let's see if the first obligates the second.

afishamongmany said:

Concerning your OP, after pondering awhile, no I don't agree. Facts are things that are true and correct as opposed to false, existent in reality as opposed to made up in the imagination. ...

Sorry but I can't go with; “... history … The stories we tell about ourselves.”, either.

Click to expand...

I'm inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want facts to be an absolute truth. Absolute truth requires infinite knowledge, so it is something only God can provide. Given historical fact is discerned by humans, it is not absolute truth. Once there is a possibility for error, there can no longer be a singular authority. I can't claim to be the sole proprietor of fact, nor can you. You can conclude I'm not worth convincing - cast me off - work amongst a select group who agrees certain things are facts. But then it would still remain that we disagree on what is fact. So what have you gained? What truth?

I think the dilemma one gets into when trying to make some claim that facts are truth whether we believe it or not was best put in an article by Stephen Barr, "Stephen Hawking worried that if physics produced a 'theory of everything' then that theory would have to explain why some people believed in it and some didn't; and their respective beliefs would then be the inevitable consequence of physical processes taking place in their brains rather than the validity of their reasoning."

Eudaimonist said:

I have no idea what facts being "minimalist" means, but facts aren't produced merely by consensus. There may have been a consensus at one time that the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it a fact.

It may be that facts can be expected to produce a consensus in time, and in discussion one typically only accepts something as a "fact" when it is agreed to by both discussion partners, but it is reality that makes something a fact.

Click to expand...

If you've read the thread and still don't understand what I mean, I can try to explain. But I must say that unless Reality joins the discussion, my guess is that you are only speaking on Reality's behalf. As such, I'll need more than that.

Also, please note I was speaking of historical fact, so your flat earth example doesn't really fit. We would need to examine the case for who believed the earth was flat and why. But I suppose I don't mind too much using it as an example. It is thrown out all the time, but its true history seems buried under a blanket of myth and hyperbole.

Speculation that the earth is a sphere has been around since at least the 6th century BC ... that's our first documented evidence of the idea but maybe it had been considered for much longer. By the 3rd century BC the Greeks had good evidence of it and considered the matter settled. Sure, some continued to speak of a flat earth after that, but this is my point: so what? What was the context of that belief?

The neighborhood in which I live is somewhat hilly. I wouldn't call it flat. Yet I live in the Midwest, which many call flat. So what did ancients mean when they said the world was flat? If they were calling the world flat, it must have been in contrast to something that was less flat than the extents of their known world. The fact of the matter is, given the technology of the time, the distances they could travel, the manner in which they interacted with the land, to the extents most of them could reach - the earth they were familiar with was flat. Over what arc of the earth would they have had to travel before the curvature affected their trajectory? Before that curvature exceeded what they had experienced in the undulations from valley to mountain peak?

If you've ever traveled through South Dakota, saying the earth is flat is an apt description.

For the vast majority of people prior to the 6th century BC, "flat" was an appropriate description of the extents of the earth they knew. Once it was realized the earth was much bigger, and that bigger expanse was spherical, the old understanding hung on - as they often do. My weatherman still speaks of the sun rising. I don't call the TV station to correct him. I understand the context in which he speaks, and in that context it is a fact that the sun rose at 6:52 AM today.

It is inappropriate to apply modern context to ancient statements. It inaccurately makes them look dumber and more naive than they were.

Even today, some may start off when they're very young thinking the earth is flat. They must be allowed to mature and explore - to discover the larger earth is a sphere. Maybe some will never accept it. I doubt they would pass an astronomy class with that attitude, and so astronomers will forever say it is a fact the earth is a sphere. That is the context for that fact that stands against the dissenters. But once you agree to enter a conversation with a dissenter, that context disappears. You've accepted a challenge to revisit the question - to analyze the evidence and see if it holds.

afishamongmany said:

My position vis à vis “Science” is that it is best considered as a methodology for obtaining, verifying and collating knowledge. A methodology that is open to all (ie not just those labeled “scientist”) and usable in all domains (ie including history).

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. I suppose what you say may have some lay utility, but it is too casual to be of much use. What you say could be applied to anything, and as a result nothing that anyone says or does could ever be said to be unscientific. The way I use the term implies a rigorous, formal method developed by and for professionals. I would not trust the vehicle put together by someone not trained as an engineer just as I would not allow a doctor to minister to me unless he had the proper degree.

History doesn't carry the life or death magnitude of those examples, but there is good reason for peer review of historical work.

afishamongmany said:

“I can't tell whether Livy was truthful by testing the pH of the ink he used ...”

No but you can by objective, rigorous, examination and analysis decide how much of what he wrote you are going to accept as being factual.

Click to expand...

I would question how objective you can be. But, OK. Again, you seem to be thinking only of what you accept. If that's as far as your interest goes, that's fine. But as soon as you involve someone else it becomes something quite different.

afishamongmany said:

“In affectionate remembrance of George Cadmore, one of the scholars at Silsen Church Sunday School, who departed this life January 15th 1881, in the 19th year of his age, and was interred at Silsden Church, Jan. 20th.”

I have no problem accepting this inscription as a list of historical facts that tell me a story, without any weaving of a narrative on my part.

Click to expand...

A rather minimal passage, and I would say rather uninteresting. But, what is the story in that passage and what are the facts?

afishamongmany said:

Not at all. I'm saying that science is a methodology that, yes, can be applied to anything. It can be, but more often than not is not. Specific training in specific disciplines, hopefully, leads to proper the application of this methodology. But please no priestly castes having a monopoly on "Science".

Click to expand...

You're making a judgment that others don't apply this method you speak of. What justifies that judgment?

You may not like the "priestly castes" but unless a discipline is formalized, judgments of whether someone has or hasn't properly applied a method are merely opinion. Again, in the lay community you can accept and reject "fact" as you please. But if you want to label something as "scientific" or "historical" with any degree of credibility, you must meet the requirements of said caste and receive their blessing ... an exercise in consensus.

Of course such things are sometimes unfair, and they tend to protect the status quo rather than seek the new (Kuhn's whole thing about revolutions), but that's the way it is. Frustrating as it may be, no one has found a better idea.

afishamongmany said:

Again not at all. Most of us are interested in what other people think. Maybe especially when it differs from what we think. Our decisions on what we accept or reject as a fact (or to say, Don't know) always involves input from and reaction with other people.

Click to expand...

So, with all these people accepting and rejecting different "facts", what makes you think any of them are "truth"? ...

... Given how you clipped my last post, it seems your interest in the topic is waning. That's fine. I don't want to press you to the point of irritation. But as long as you want to keep discussing the matter we can.

afishamongmany said:

I've no problem with discipline or formalisation but “priests castes” is something else. Are you saying that “the laity” are excluded from making judgments on priestly pronouncements because “the methods” can only be understood by “the priests”?

Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. I'm not sure what derision you're trying to communicate by referring to the "priestly castes". If you mean people shouldn't be excluded from a profession when they are capable, I would agree. But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. I'll use my example of the medical doctor again. I have no faith that the laity can cure cancer. If a doctor says I need chemotherapy, but some guy with a fake diploma says I just need to swing a dead cat at midnight, I'd be bringing charges for malpractice. So exactly what judgments do you think the laity should be making?

Are you saying history is different than these other professions (doctor, engineer, etc.) and doesn't require training? That the laity are equally capable even without the training?

afishamongmany said:

So, say that I have priestly cred and their blessing and the consensus is with me and I am with it, this is still not what makes a fact a fact. Hispaniola was a fact long before Columbus set foot there and that the sun revolves around the earth was not a fact even when there was a consensus that it was.

Click to expand...

So what? That's what I've been trying to ask. You think we have these facts floating around out there somewhere, but no one can tell if they're facts or not. Great. Of what use is that? What does it gain you to believe that? I don't understand why you're trying to hang on to "facts" being absolutely true. I do know that for some people, they feel if they let go of such a belief they're in the position of asking: "Well, then what can I believe? Nothing." That's not the case, however.

Or, if all you're saying is that we need to accept that we might be wrong, I've agreed with that all along.

But your terminology has a problem:
1) As I understand it, the term you use for the historical things that, as best we can tell, happened, but we could possible be wrong is: fact
2) As I understand it, the term you use for things that are absolutely true is: fact

The same word is describing 2 different things. I would prefer 2 words, so I use "fact" for #1 and "truth" for #2. Or if you want to apply some adjectives, calling #1 "historical fact" and #2 "absolute fact" would be fine as well. But you need some way to distinguish them.