4 ms·

What if our entire history is a hoax + confirmation bias? Sounds crazy but some sources claim they know what some guy said to another guy a few thousands years

What if our entire history is a hoax + confirmation bias? Sounds crazy but some sources claim they know what some guy said to another guy a few thousands years ago - isn't that crazy? You could make some part of it in the 17th century and no one would notice as long as it sounds pretty and does not contradict previously made stories.

krapp 7y ago
We have documentary and archaeological sources to corroborate our model of the historical record, and scientific methods to determine the age and authenticity of those sources to a reasonable degree. While hoaxes do exist, they tend to be discovered in time, and it is unlikely that the entire historical record, including all physical artifacts, are hoaxes or frauds. It isn't the case that anything that "sounds pretty and does not contradict previously made stories" is automatically assumed to be correct - the various sciences and disciplines that make up historical research are not that naive, nor do they operate entirely on hearsay and speculation.
- account73466 7y ago
  If you worked in academia, you know how the review process is happening. Even if you deal with exact science papers, most of them are misleading in some way (fortunately, you can show it since it is exact science). History is full of politics and it is pretty costly to go against it. In practice, when you have a story accepted as fact, you job is to put a little peace to supplement it. If you deviate too far, you will be destroyed by the ones whose current job is also add a little peace. For instance, there is a huge political aspect to who did what first and where.
  - krapp 7y ago
    There's still a big difference between "politics sometimes affects academia" and "everything we know is a lie."
    - account73466 7y ago
      Obviously not everything but more than one would think is acceptable. Standing on the shoulders of giants sometimes has its cons.
      - krapp 7y ago
        How do you know, though? You seem to be using generalities to talk around specifics, what specifically are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?
        account73466 7y ago
        If I would talk about specifics, you could supplement your sentence "what evidence do you have" with "regarding X" but since I don't talk about specifics, I don't need to.
        Retric 7y ago
        If something is generally true then their must exist many specific cases of it being true. Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument.
        account73466 7y ago
        >> Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument. No, it does not since this is not how logic and science work. You just stay with a claim that is missing a support but it does not mean that the claim is false. >> Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Alright. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy and let me know what is the main thing you are uncomfortable with (if any). If there is a match, then I will provide another example.
        7y ago
nitwit005 7y ago
You can go check. The historical sites and documents are around to look at. You might have to learn several dead languages, of course. With military events there were attempts to fib by exaggerating military victories, or claiming a defeat was a victory. If it's relatively modern there are usually multiple perspectives, and you can go try to find evidence at the site.

krapp 7y ago

We have documentary and archaeological sources to corroborate our model of the historical record, and scientific methods to determine the age and authenticity of those sources to a reasonable degree. While hoaxes do exist, they tend to be discovered in time, and it is unlikely that the entire historical record, including all physical artifacts, are hoaxes or frauds. It isn't the case that anything that "sounds pretty and does not contradict previously made stories" is automatically assumed to be correct - the various sciences and disciplines that make up historical research are not that naive, nor do they operate entirely on hearsay and speculation.

account73466 7y ago
If you worked in academia, you know how the review process is happening. Even if you deal with exact science papers, most of them are misleading in some way (fortunately, you can show it since it is exact science). History is full of politics and it is pretty costly to go against it. In practice, when you have a story accepted as fact, you job is to put a little peace to supplement it. If you deviate too far, you will be destroyed by the ones whose current job is also add a little peace. For instance, there is a huge political aspect to who did what first and where.
- krapp 7y ago
  There's still a big difference between "politics sometimes affects academia" and "everything we know is a lie."
  - account73466 7y ago
    Obviously not everything but more than one would think is acceptable. Standing on the shoulders of giants sometimes has its cons.
    - krapp 7y ago
      How do you know, though? You seem to be using generalities to talk around specifics, what specifically are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?
      - account73466 7y ago
        If I would talk about specifics, you could supplement your sentence "what evidence do you have" with "regarding X" but since I don't talk about specifics, I don't need to.
        Retric 7y ago
        If something is generally true then their must exist many specific cases of it being true. Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument.
        account73466 7y ago
        >> Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument. No, it does not since this is not how logic and science work. You just stay with a claim that is missing a support but it does not mean that the claim is false. >> Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Alright. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy and let me know what is the main thing you are uncomfortable with (if any). If there is a match, then I will provide another example.
        7y ago

nitwit005 7y ago

You can go check. The historical sites and documents are around to look at. You might have to learn several dead languages, of course. With military events there were attempts to fib by exaggerating military victories, or claiming a defeat was a victory. If it's relatively modern there are usually multiple perspectives, and you can go try to find evidence at the site.