2 ms·

Its really impossible to go back in history, at all. Its pretty much impossible to agree about what is going on in the present. Scientists, historians, everyo

Its really impossible to go back in history, at all. Its pretty much impossible to agree about what is going on in the present. Scientists, historians, everyone really attempts to show how they deal in facts, ones which mere mortals should just accept, but when you dig into any area, you will realise that its all highly ambiguous, whether that's the facts that are being presented, the way its presented, the money trail, the way it is framed, etc. People disparage 'anecdotal experience' but to me its all any of us has. Its our 'golden source'. Whenever we start undertaking actions that are not coherent with our personal, lived experience, we are walking on thin ice.

joshuahedlund 3y ago
> Its really impossible to go back in history, at all Sequencing ancient DNA allows us to do this in some respects. We’ve learned a lot in the last <10 years about population movements, relations, and timing from this. See “Who We Are and How We Got Here” by David Reich. Main takeaway: there was a lot more mixing of early modern human population groups than anyone expected.
Jedd 3y ago
> Its really impossible to go back in history, at all. That sounds quite defeatist. I expect that linguistic, archaeological, logistical, genetic, and probably a few other vectors, can lead us to at least a sequence (causation) view of history we can have some confidence in, and then perhaps we can debate the precise dates. > Its pretty much impossible to agree about what is going on in the present. That sounds like a mantra posited by people trying to claim truth is subjective, and/or that a particular narrative (unsupported by evidence) is 'going on'. I prefer to believe that an objective assessment of reality (as it stands) is not beyond our capabilities.
- verisimi 3y ago
  > That sounds quite defeatist. Far from it. In our own countries, the freedom fighting good guys always win. It was the baddies that lost. > That sounds like a mantra posited by people trying to claim truth is subjective, and/or that a particular narrative (unsupported by evidence) is 'going on'. I think truth is objective. But no one individual, or group of people, has truth - they just have an interpretation. I actually think this is fairly obvious too. Feel free to give an example of an objective assessment of reality.

joshuahedlund 3y ago

> Its really impossible to go back in history, at all Sequencing ancient DNA allows us to do this in some respects. We’ve learned a lot in the last <10 years about population movements, relations, and timing from this. See “Who We Are and How We Got Here” by David Reich. Main takeaway: there was a lot more mixing of early modern human population groups than anyone expected.

Jedd 3y ago

> Its really impossible to go back in history, at all. That sounds quite defeatist. I expect that linguistic, archaeological, logistical, genetic, and probably a few other vectors, can lead us to at least a sequence (causation) view of history we can have some confidence in, and then perhaps we can debate the precise dates. > Its pretty much impossible to agree about what is going on in the present. That sounds like a mantra posited by people trying to claim truth is subjective, and/or that a particular narrative (unsupported by evidence) is 'going on'. I prefer to believe that an objective assessment of reality (as it stands) is not beyond our capabilities.

verisimi 3y ago
> That sounds quite defeatist. Far from it. In our own countries, the freedom fighting good guys always win. It was the baddies that lost. > That sounds like a mantra posited by people trying to claim truth is subjective, and/or that a particular narrative (unsupported by evidence) is 'going on'. I think truth is objective. But no one individual, or group of people, has truth - they just have an interpretation. I actually think this is fairly obvious too. Feel free to give an example of an objective assessment of reality.