8 ms·

The article is from the point of view of a responsible historian. There is no evidence of the myth being true. There are no sources in history suggesting it.

The article is from the point of view of a responsible historian. There is no evidence of the myth being true. There are no sources in history suggesting it. It might be true. But there is no evidence that it is. Proving it false is another matter.

karaterobot 3y ago
I don't know about that. They seemed to be definitively saying the staircases were not built to aid defenders, but didn't have strong evidence for that. If they'd said "there is no positive evidence that..." or "we have no reason to believe that..." then I'd agree with you, but what they wrote was: > Medieval staircases were NOT built going clockwise for the defender’s advantage and > it’s not true. Which seem like confident statements with no affirmative evidence to support them. In fairness, their conclusion is more measured: > So in conclusion: there’s no evidence for this claim and it also doesn’t make a lot of sense. But that's not the headline they went with.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  by default, it is untrue until sufficient evidence arises that it is true see also: Russell's teapot [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  - calderknight 3y ago
    If there's no evidence about a situation, there's no evidence for any theory about the situation. There's no evidence for the proposition A. There's no evidence for the proposition not A. By your reasoning we have to believe that both these propositions are untrue: A and not A. This seems totally insane.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, that is not the case. A thing, whether the existence of a teapot floating in space, or an old architecture myth, is by default untrue until sufficient evidence arises showing it is true. This article is simply pointing out that such evidence doesn't exist in the staircase attacker theory. We do not believe that maybe it is true this teapot exists, maybe not, simply because the initial hypothesis (that it is true in the first place) hasn't yet been falsified. If that were the case, I could make up a thousand improbable myths, and say they're all maybe true, maybe not, and we would have to treat them all as equally plausible until someone wastes their time trying to disprove all thousand, and then I could make up a thousand more. That is why the burden of proof of truth lies with the person asserting the truth of a teapot/staircase belief To add to your A vs. not-A problem, you are close to identifying the resolution, too: For an analogue in statistics, A = "this staircase explanation has sufficient evidence to say it is true", not-A = "this staircase explanation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude it is true". Not-A here is example of what is called the null hypothesis in statistics. The null hypothesis is the default. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
      - calderknight 3y ago
        The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing without evidence.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        the point of Russell's teapot is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it unproven, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    Okay, so let me them make the claim: "It is false that staircases were built clockwise to advantage the defender". Then, since we agree that the claim has no evidence to support it, we assume it is false. Therefore, we conclude, "it is true that staircases were built clockwise to advantage the defender". I agree that the burden of proof lies upon the person that makes the claim. But that doesn't mean we assume the opposite of the claim must be true until they do. It means we assume ignorance. So, a more correct statement would be: "In the absence of evidence of why the staircases were constructed, we do not know why they were constructed". To say the absence of evidence proves the opposite of the claim is wrong.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      the actual (and also initial) claim here is that the myth is true, the author is simply pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to support the myth, and thus we fall back on the null hypothesis, aka the default: that there does not yet exist sufficient evidence to conclude the myth is anything other than false. > But that doesn't mean we assume the opposite of the claim must be true until they do. It means we assume ignorance. Regardless of the wording, the gist is the same: we /don't/ assume ignorance, we treat the claim, like Russell's teapot [0], or any other unsupported claim, as false until such evidence arises, since there are an infinite number of unfalsifiable premises, and we neither want to, nor do, in practice, treat them all as maybe true, maybe not, forever. tl;dr: As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, yes, there is a default, and that is that a thing is false unless sufficient evidence exists to believe otherwise. No, we don't treat all unfalsified (and unfalsifiable) hypotheses as unknown and assume ignorance. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
      - calderknight 3y ago
        You have cited that Wikipedia page five times. But it doesn't say anything about there being such a default view.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    My comment was that I was not convinced of the argument the article made, not that I was convinced the opposite was true.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      The article doesn't make any arguments, it simply examines the arguments made by others, and points out that those arguments aren't convincing enough to conclude the myth is true (and thus we fall back to the default: that the myth is false)
      - usrusr 3y ago
        Much of the article just describes that fighting in a stairwell would be dangerous and inconvenient (what fighting is not?), completely ignoring the question wether one winding might be more or less so.
bluGill 3y ago
Even if you can prove it true in some specific castle that doesn't not mean it is true for all. Maybe other castles just copied the one where it was - often type of thing is done in architecture without realizing why, and so one castle built for fighting on stairs was copied in others without the other features that make fighting on stairs possible. (Or maybe the first was built for fighting on stairs, but after it was built practice proved it was still a bad idea - lots of variations on this idea).

karaterobot 3y ago

I don't know about that. They seemed to be definitively saying the staircases were not built to aid defenders, but didn't have strong evidence for that. If they'd said "there is no positive evidence that..." or "we have no reason to believe that..." then I'd agree with you, but what they wrote was: > Medieval staircases were NOT built going clockwise for the defender’s advantage and > it’s not true. Which seem like confident statements with no affirmative evidence to support them. In fairness, their conclusion is more measured: > So in conclusion: there’s no evidence for this claim and it also doesn’t make a lot of sense. But that's not the headline they went with.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
by default, it is untrue until sufficient evidence arises that it is true see also: Russell's teapot [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- calderknight 3y ago
  If there's no evidence about a situation, there's no evidence for any theory about the situation. There's no evidence for the proposition A. There's no evidence for the proposition not A. By your reasoning we have to believe that both these propositions are untrue: A and not A. This seems totally insane.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, that is not the case. A thing, whether the existence of a teapot floating in space, or an old architecture myth, is by default untrue until sufficient evidence arises showing it is true. This article is simply pointing out that such evidence doesn't exist in the staircase attacker theory. We do not believe that maybe it is true this teapot exists, maybe not, simply because the initial hypothesis (that it is true in the first place) hasn't yet been falsified. If that were the case, I could make up a thousand improbable myths, and say they're all maybe true, maybe not, and we would have to treat them all as equally plausible until someone wastes their time trying to disprove all thousand, and then I could make up a thousand more. That is why the burden of proof of truth lies with the person asserting the truth of a teapot/staircase belief To add to your A vs. not-A problem, you are close to identifying the resolution, too: For an analogue in statistics, A = "this staircase explanation has sufficient evidence to say it is true", not-A = "this staircase explanation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude it is true". Not-A here is example of what is called the null hypothesis in statistics. The null hypothesis is the default. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
    - calderknight 3y ago
      The point of Russell's argument is that we should not believe in the Christian god/the teapot. Not that we should believe that those things do not exist. It's an argument against believing without evidence, not for believing without evidence.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        the point of Russell's teapot is that even though the teapot (like this myth) is neither proven nor disproven, we should, and do, treat it unproven, because that is the default state until sufficient evidence arises It's an argument against entertaining theories that have no evidence, against ignorant agnosticism towards any arbitrary theory
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Okay, so let me them make the claim: "It is false that staircases were built clockwise to advantage the defender". Then, since we agree that the claim has no evidence to support it, we assume it is false. Therefore, we conclude, "it is true that staircases were built clockwise to advantage the defender". I agree that the burden of proof lies upon the person that makes the claim. But that doesn't mean we assume the opposite of the claim must be true until they do. It means we assume ignorance. So, a more correct statement would be: "In the absence of evidence of why the staircases were constructed, we do not know why they were constructed". To say the absence of evidence proves the opposite of the claim is wrong.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    the actual (and also initial) claim here is that the myth is true, the author is simply pointing out that there is insufficient evidence to support the myth, and thus we fall back on the null hypothesis, aka the default: that there does not yet exist sufficient evidence to conclude the myth is anything other than false. > But that doesn't mean we assume the opposite of the claim must be true until they do. It means we assume ignorance. Regardless of the wording, the gist is the same: we /don't/ assume ignorance, we treat the claim, like Russell's teapot [0], or any other unsupported claim, as false until such evidence arises, since there are an infinite number of unfalsifiable premises, and we neither want to, nor do, in practice, treat them all as maybe true, maybe not, forever. tl;dr: As Russell's teapot [0] demonstrates, yes, there is a default, and that is that a thing is false unless sufficient evidence exists to believe otherwise. No, we don't treat all unfalsified (and unfalsifiable) hypotheses as unknown and assume ignorance. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
    - calderknight 3y ago
      You have cited that Wikipedia page five times. But it doesn't say anything about there being such a default view.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
- karaterobot 3y ago
  My comment was that I was not convinced of the argument the article made, not that I was convinced the opposite was true.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    The article doesn't make any arguments, it simply examines the arguments made by others, and points out that those arguments aren't convincing enough to conclude the myth is true (and thus we fall back to the default: that the myth is false)
    - usrusr 3y ago
      Much of the article just describes that fighting in a stairwell would be dangerous and inconvenient (what fighting is not?), completely ignoring the question wether one winding might be more or less so.

bluGill 3y ago

Even if you can prove it true in some specific castle that doesn't not mean it is true for all. Maybe other castles just copied the one where it was - often type of thing is done in architecture without realizing why, and so one castle built for fighting on stairs was copied in others without the other features that make fighting on stairs possible. (Or maybe the first was built for fighting on stairs, but after it was built practice proved it was still a bad idea - lots of variations on this idea).