Philosophy of History Part I: Facts

[Resha Caner]

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.

I didn't say just "interpretations". I said, "interpretations of facts". What we consider to be facts differs.

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

Um, yes, that was the point: consensus. Consensus doesn't mean I accept everything the other students propose as fact, nor do they accept everything I propose. We reach a consensus, which is the minimum that we all agree are facts.

 

[Resha Caner]

Next, suppose the professor enters the conversation and introduces additional evidence, the result being that the consensus on fact changes. That happens frequently as well. As such, the minimal facts of our consensus are dependent on context.

So, I think we could state facts about the passage I provided without any additional evidence. The most minimal statement I can think of to propose as a fact is:

In this thread Caner has attributed a statement to Livy that Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.

Would you agree this is a fact?

 

[durangodawood]

Next, suppose the professor enters the conversation and introduces additional evidence, the result being that the consensus on fact changes. That happens frequently as well. As such, the minimal facts of our consensus are dependent on context.

So, I think we could state facts about the passage I provided without any additional evidence. The most minimal statement I can think of to propose as a fact is:

In this thread Caner has attributed a statement to Livy that Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.

Would you agree this is a fact?

Yes!
This is very exciting. I think we've found a fact we here can all agree on.
(Just dont get too particular about who this Caner guy 'really' is).

 

[KCfromNC]

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?

Probably not, but we'd likely get pretty close. Humans aren't perfect evidence processing machines. Luckily we've developed some really useful ways to work around that problem in many situations that let us solve many practical problems that come about when interacting with reality.

We also have philosophy.

 

[Resha Caner]

Probably not, but we'd likely get pretty close.

Maybe. In my experience most people are initially very trusting of historical sources and very optimistic they can convince others. Therefore, they tend to list a lot of things as facts that aren't. Time makes them more critical of the sources and more pessimistic about the chances of reaching agreement ... but that's just my experience. Yours is probably different.

Humans aren't perfect evidence processing machines.

No, they're not.

Luckily we've developed some really useful ways to work around that problem in many situations that let us solve many practical problems that come about when interacting with reality.

We also have philosophy.

OK. So do you think the study of history plays any productive role?

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes!
This is very exciting. I think we've found a fact we here can all agree on.

Not quite sure what to do with that. Is that sarcasm? Actual agreement? A reference to the OP?

(Just dont get too particular about who this Caner guy 'really' is).

But I guess I'll try moving on, and this is a good lead in. It is certainly possible to become critical of sources beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. And that seems to happen more often than it should. But, in the context of people being super-critical it just means we have no facts.

So what if I modify our agreed upon fact:

Livy states that Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.

Would you still agree with that?

Would it help if I noted that both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Livy - even mention him as a historian with ties to Emperor Claudius? Would it help if I mention that even though Livy lived 59 BC - 17 AD while Hannibal (purportedly) lived 247-183 BC (so the event Livy relates is not contemporary), that Livy appears to have used Coelius as his primary source (who lived circa 123 BC - much closer to the purported event).

Does it cause problems if I mention that the oldest extant copy of the complete work of Livy is from the 10th century (there are a few fragments from earlier)? And that these extant copies were likely modified from the original? And that as best I know we only have a few fragments of Coelius, his source?

[edit] Oh, and I should probably also mention that it is widely accepted that Greek and Roman historians used what is called a "narrative method". In other words, they weren't writing "just the facts". They were intentionally promoting a "Greek" or "Roman" ideal, and felt justified in modifying or enhancing the story if it supported that objective. So, they added details not in their sources if it better conveyed the "Greek" or "Roman" idea they were promoting.

Also, no one ever commented on the fact that I've no archaeological evidence to offer. Is that a problem?

 

[durangodawood]

So what if I modify our agreed upon fact:
Livy states that Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.
Would you still agree with that?

Yes, Id agree, but only provisionally, because I trust you. But if I was going to put my name to that fact, Id have to back it up with something better than "a guy on an internet forum says....".

Would it help if I noted that both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Livy - even mention him as a historian with ties to Emperor Claudius? Would it help if I mention that even though Livy lived 59 BC - 17 AD while Hannibal (purportedly) lived 247-183 BC (so the event Livy relates is not contemporary), that Livy appears to have used Coelius as his primary source (who lived circa 123 BC - much closer to the purported event).

Does it cause problems if I mention that the oldest extant copy of the complete work of Livy is from the 10th century (there are a few fragments from earlier)? And that these extant copies were likely modified from the original? And that as best I know we only have a few fragments of Coelius, his source?

[edit] Oh, and I should probably also mention that it is widely accepted that Greek and Roman historians used what is called a "narrative method". In other words, they weren't writing "just the facts". They were intentionally promoting a "Greek" or "Roman" ideal, and felt justified in modifying or enhancing the story if it supported that objective. So, they added details not in their sources if it better conveyed the "Greek" or "Roman" idea they were promoting.

Also, no one ever commented on the fact that I've no archaeological evidence to offer. Is that a problem?

Now Livy himself gets more problematic. Were the elephants a fable, like George Washingtons cherry tree? I'd need to know more before making a judgement about the presence of elephants.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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.

No, a fact is a fact whether I (or anyone else) believes it or not.

When I wrote the statement yesterday, the evidence (to me) was sensory. The only evidence to you would be trusting me. So you can either accept the statement or not based on that. It's not an extraordinary claim, so it's not the case that you would have to believe what I was saying was possible in addition to accepting that I wasn't lying.

I knew for a fact when I wrote the statement it was true. Today I have to rely on my memory of the event, which I'm accepting to be true.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, Id agree, but only provisionally, because I trust you.

But if I was going to put my name to that fact, Id have to back it up with something better than "a guy on an internet forum says....".

Good. And I understand the provisional agreement.

Now Livy himself gets more problematic. Were the elephants a fable, like George Washingtons cherry tree? I'd need to know more before making a judgement about the presence of elephants.

Again, I've got no archaeological evidence to offer, but suppose I did. Suppose tool marks were found in the Alps indicating a road had been cut. That might make Livy's story seem more plausible, but does it confirm it? Livy notes the elephants were "near" death, but doesn't indicate any actually died, so maybe there are no bones to be found. Suppose the bones of pack horses were found in the Alps that dated near the time of the event, would that help? Or was it just some traders using a road cut through the Alps? Even if elephant bones were found, would that help? Here's a source that discusses how exotic animals were transported for use in the Roman ampitheaters:

http://alexandriaarchive.org/boneco...on---mouseion---exotic-animals_5699c70e61.pdf

So maybe elephant bones found in the Alps were just those traders bringing animals to market.

This and the narrative style is not just a problem with Livy, but with virtually every Greek & Roman historian ... or is it a problem with what we are expecting of history?

Regardless, let me mention another source: Polybius. Polybius lived 200-118 BC, so very soon after Hannibal's purported journey. So, he didn't personally witness the event, but he claims to have interviewed soldiers from the Punic Wars - people who did witness those events. Here is a snip from his account:

Polybius, Book 3, Chapter 44, Paragraphs 6-7
As a result [of the first winter snow], Hannibal gave up all hope of making progress and set up camp along the ridge, scraping away all the snow from the site. After that he ordered the soldiers to rebuild the foundations of the track along the slope, which they did with a great deal of painful effort. Nevertheless in one day they had created an adequate pathway for the horses and pack-animals, so he immediately led them across and set up another camp in an area free of snow and put them out to grass. He then ordered the Numidians to work in relays to build up the path, so that after three days of agonising labour he got the elephants across as well, though starvation had reduced them to a sorry state.

Was Livy aware of Polybius? He was, but as best I know didn't use him much because he was a Greek, not a Roman - not a trustworthy source.

Does this make it seem more plausible? I do not know of any contemporary accounts of Hannibal's journey, but we now have two separate accounts from shortly after - one Greek and one Roman. Why are there no Carthaginian accounts? Well, Carthage lost the Punic Wars and was obliterated. That's one good reason [edit] i.e. they didn't get a chance to write an account. Plus we have both the Greeks and the Romans relating an amazing feat by the enemy which resulted in a devastating loss by the Romans - not something the victors would be anxious to acknowledge. That's a second reason. [edit] Sorry, it probably wasn't clear, but it was common practice for the victor to intentionally destroy accounts written by the enemy.

But none of it is definitive. So how much evidence would it take before you would agree the following statement is a fact:

Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, a fact is a fact whether I (or anyone else) believes it or not.

When I wrote the statement yesterday, the evidence (to me) was sensory. The only evidence to you would be trusting me. So you can either accept the statement or not based on that. It's not an extraordinary claim, so it's not the case that you would have to believe what I was saying was possible in addition to accepting that I wasn't lying.

I knew for a fact when I wrote the statement it was true. Today I have to rely on my memory of the event, which I'm accepting to be true.

It seems to me you're conflating evidence, fact, reality, and truth. You didn't answer me if you think those terms are synonomous or if they have differences. I see them as different things.

So, a few comments in that regard:
1) Are you saying memory of an event does not establish it as fact? That we must have physical evidence to establish fact? Why is that? If that's true, very little that happened in the past can be established as fact.

2) Your initial statement is very Platonist: a fact is a fact whether anyone knows it or not. So, we have Fact Forms floating around in the ether somewhere? OK. What difference does it make if a fact is out there if no one knows it? Remember we're speaking of the philosophy of history in this thread.

 

[durangodawood]

...But none of it is definitive. So how much evidence would it take before you would agree the following statement is a fact:

Hannibal led elephants across the Alps.

Seems like there must be some evidence of elephants in military service in Carthage and in its various campaigns, other than for this one sole journey, right? That would go a long way toward making this detail plausible.

OTOH, if this is the sole and only noted instance of such pachydermic service, then I cant elevate it to "fact" and will have to provisionally assign it to fable, like the cherry tree.

 

[Resha Caner]

Seems like there must be some evidence of elephants in military service in Carthage and in its various campaigns, other than for this one sole journey, right? That would go a long way toward making this detail plausible.

OTOH, if this is the sole and only noted instance of such pachydermic service, then I cant elevate it to "fact" and will have to provisionally assign it to fable, like the cherry tree.

That's a reasonable thing to ask, but keep in mind it's not the elephants per se, but taking them through the mountains.

There are accounts that Carthage used elephants extensively throughout the Punic Wars. Beyond that, it was a common animal of war in many cultures: India, Persia, etc. So, I can give you a lot of documentary evidence. I'd have to check further whether there is any archaeological evidence of elephants at battle sites. I'm not familiar with that aspect.

Whether you ever assent to the example is not really my interest, though. Again, I'm more interested in the OP. Or possibly in the question I asked in the last post: Do we expect too much of history?

Those who take the "facts" (the things the super-majority of professional historians agree upon) and string them together to make the most basic of stories are called "minimalists". I would bet you've not read a minimalist history. I have, and I'm not fond of them.

 

[durangodawood]

That's a reasonable thing to ask, but keep in mind it's not the elephants per se, but taking them through the mountains.

There are accounts that Carthage used elephants extensively throughout the Punic Wars. Beyond that, it was a common animal of war in many cultures: India, Persia, etc. So, I can give you a lot of documentary evidence. I'd have to check further whether there is any archaeological evidence of elephants at battle sites. I'm not familiar with that aspect.

Whether you ever assent to the example is not really my interest, though. Again, I'm more interested in the OP. Or possibly in the question I asked in the last post: Do we expect too much of history?

Those who take the "facts" (the things the super-majority of professional historians agree upon) and string them together to make the most basic of stories are called "minimalists". I would bet you've not read a minimalist history. I have, and I'm not fond of them.

The I feel much better about Livy's account, re: elephants, unless there's some contrary biological facts like elephants always die in 1 day of cold weather, or something.

As for the bigger question, history can be stories AND facts, right? Just realize when its important to distinguish between the two. I'm sure a minimalist history AND a fleshed-out history each have their particular use.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It seems to me you're conflating evidence, fact, reality, and truth. You didn't answer me if you think those terms are synonomous or if they have differences. I see them as different things.

I've already explained the differences.

Evidence: What convinces us that a statement is fact
Fact: A true statement that describes reality
Reality: What exists
True: Corresponding to reality

So, a few comments in that regard:
1) Are you saying memory of an event does not establish it as fact? That we must have physical evidence to establish fact? Why is that? If that's true, very little that happened in the past can be established as fact.

If memory can be faulty then it, on its own, can't be relied upon to establish a past statement as factual. We know that memory can be faulty. Someone can assume that a person's memory is adequate in order to assume that a statement regarding the past is factual, but to me the phrase "establish as fact" would be, to me, more rigorous than that. And yes, I find a lot of ancient history to be too unevidenced to establish as fact.

2) Your initial statement is very Platonist: a fact is a fact whether anyone knows it or not. So, we have Fact Forms floating around in the ether somewhere? OK. What difference does it make if a fact is out there if no one knows it? Remember we're speaking of the philosophy of history in this thread.

There is no "fact form". Facts only describe reality. They aren't things or qualities of things themselves. What you're really talking about is evidence that is used to justify the acceptance of statements as fact.

 

[Resha Caner]

As for the bigger question, history can be stories AND facts, right? Just realize when its important to distinguish between the two. I'm sure a minimalist history AND a fleshed-out history each have their particular use.

Yes, history is narrative and facts. I agree. I think it is important to be cognizant of the facts, but it is equally important to be cognizant of the narrative. I could start a "Part II" thread on narrative, but maybe it's easier just to continue here.

IMO, people - minimalists - who dig in and insist on "just the facts" (especially when dealing with documentary evidence - which is the vast majority of historical evidence) too often strip away important facets of the document. In some cases I would go so far as to say they are doing it intentionally to twist documentary evidence to their own purposes. Just as in politics where the extreme left and right both result in tyranny, extreme minimalism and extreme narrative acceptance lead to a tyranny of history.

[edit] The sin of minimalists is often to strip a document, and then to imply (though they rarely state it) that the story never happened.

Since most non-professionals that I speak to about history seem to think history is only about the facts - only about the "real" story, I tend to emphasize the importance of the narrative. So, I think it is important when studying documentary evidence to make an attempt to understand the objectives of the author. IOW, reading Livy is not just about the "real story of Rome" (which includes the story of Hannibal). It's about understanding why Livy was telling this story. There are multiple layers of understanding that are necessary.

So, there is historical value in assessing the detail Livy added to the story of Hannibal even if that detail is not a truth about Hannibal's journey. Even though it is not a fact that Hannibal did every x,y, and z, it is a fact that Livy wrote it, and that's important.

 

[bhsmte]

I've already explained the differences.

Evidence: What convinces us that a statement is fact
Fact: A true statement that describes reality
Reality: What exists
True: Corresponding to reality



If memory can be faulty then it, on its own, can't be relied upon to establish a past statement as factual. We know that memory can be faulty. Someone can assume that a person's memory is adequate in order to assume that a statement regarding the past is factual, but to me the phrase "establish as fact" would be, to me, more rigorous than that. And yes, I find a lot of ancient history to be too unevidenced to establish as fact.



There is no "fact form". Facts only describe reality. They aren't things or qualities of things themselves. What you're really talking about is evidence that is used to justify the acceptance of statements as fact.

This is why historical work is not a hard science and longer back in history you go, the conclusions usually become less reliable.

The historical method is a means to try and be objective as possible, but historians will place more emphasis on portions of the historical method than others and apply different levels of importance to the evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evidence: What convinces us that a statement is fact
Fact: A true statement that describes reality
Reality: What exists
True: Corresponding to reality

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.

And yes, I find a lot of ancient history to be too unevidenced to establish as fact.

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.

There is no "fact form". Facts only describe reality. They aren't things or qualities of things themselves. What you're really talking about is evidence that is used to justify the acceptance of statements as fact.

You still sound Platonist. You speak of the term "evidence" as if it is self-evident - a Form. Again, examples would help.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is why historical work is not a hard science and longer back in history you go, the conclusions usually become less reliable.

Sure. But the discussion still has value.

 

[durangodawood]

....[edit] The sin of minimalists is often to strip a document, and then to imply (though they rarely state it) that the story never happened.....

I thought they put it in a box like a sort of Schrodinger's Elephant that exists in an indeterminate domain.

 

[Resha Caner]

I thought they put it in a box like a sort of Schrodinger's Elephant that exists in an indeterminate domain.

Ha!