5 ms·

that is not evidence of a historical fact

by rpearl 3y ago

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
much of accepted hidtory is not a provable fact. We have just people's word, written or not
h0l0cube 3y ago
It could be classified as a very unreliable tertiary source
commonlisp94 3y ago
Then get ready to throw out most of history, because that's all we have. It doesn't mean it's true, but it's more information than nothing.
- kristianbrigman 3y ago
  It could mean more than that, or maybe not. Velikovsky had the interesting hypothesis that you could compare this histories of different traditions to see if they synchronize. For example, joshua stopping the sun for three days, which would have been in the evening (you’d stop the sun at sunset, not at noon)… so you can look a Chinese history where it was dark for three days, or aztec history where the sun was about to rise. He does play fast and loose with his source material (based on the ones I’m familiar with) but I think the general idea is interesting…
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Written words are deemed more valid than Spoken words. So tweets are true, but what someone just spoke to me is not-true. Better to take stance that all communication is fallible and has noise. Plato 'wrote' about 'Atlantis'. Written means true? A lot of Roman Historians, like Livy, etc... Embellished or were Propaganda, or even pumped up travel guides. Where some Oral Traditions put a great deal of emphasis on memorization and can be just as good at passing information, even if the information is also wrong. They both have fallibilities. The Telephone effect exists in Oral. But in Written, it is wildly miss-interpreted. But, if across continents, cultures, methods of communication, there are flood myths everywhere. It is ok to wonder if they are based on some common occurrence. Can we put money on an exact date and cause based on some myth? Maybe not, but we can't ignore them either.

5 ms·

that is not evidence of a historical fact

by rpearl 3y ago

that is not evidence of a historical fact

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
much of accepted hidtory is not a provable fact. We have just people's word, written or not
h0l0cube 3y ago
It could be classified as a very unreliable tertiary source
commonlisp94 3y ago
Then get ready to throw out most of history, because that's all we have. It doesn't mean it's true, but it's more information than nothing.
- kristianbrigman 3y ago
  It could mean more than that, or maybe not. Velikovsky had the interesting hypothesis that you could compare this histories of different traditions to see if they synchronize. For example, joshua stopping the sun for three days, which would have been in the evening (you’d stop the sun at sunset, not at noon)… so you can look a Chinese history where it was dark for three days, or aztec history where the sun was about to rise. He does play fast and loose with his source material (based on the ones I’m familiar with) but I think the general idea is interesting…
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Written words are deemed more valid than Spoken words. So tweets are true, but what someone just spoke to me is not-true. Better to take stance that all communication is fallible and has noise. Plato 'wrote' about 'Atlantis'. Written means true? A lot of Roman Historians, like Livy, etc... Embellished or were Propaganda, or even pumped up travel guides. Where some Oral Traditions put a great deal of emphasis on memorization and can be just as good at passing information, even if the information is also wrong. They both have fallibilities. The Telephone effect exists in Oral. But in Written, it is wildly miss-interpreted. But, if across continents, cultures, methods of communication, there are flood myths everywhere. It is ok to wonder if they are based on some common occurrence. Can we put money on an exact date and cause based on some myth? Maybe not, but we can't ignore them either.