6 ms·

Much of human history hasn’t been preserved or has been suppressed What’s amazing about the Romans is that theirs was and how many primary sources still exists

Much of human history hasn’t been preserved or has been suppressed What’s amazing about the Romans is that theirs was and how many primary sources still exists. That’s why I keep my mind open on Atlantis and psychic phenomena and other conspiracy theories

jprd 3y ago
Well said! Troy alone is a great example.
- timeon 3y ago
  Which example do you mean in particular? If it is Iliad - that one was written ~400 years later. And the war was probably during the late Bronze Age collapse. So I wonder how many contemporary accounts were preserved at that time.
WalterBright 3y ago
> What’s amazing about the Romans is that theirs was and how many primary sources still exists. Because they had writing and used it.
- happytiger 3y ago
  If the rulers of the the eastern emperors are regarded as Romans, then the Roman Empire did not fall until the 15 century. Many historians would prefer 1453 as the date of the fall of the Roman Empire. That’s a fair bit later than people realize.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Also, no one bothered to systematically eliminate the Roman books. This is different from, say, the Spanish systematically looking for and destroying Aztec and Mayan codices; and the Aztecs before them had systematically looked for and destroyed Mayan works.
WalterBright 3y ago
No psychic phenomena has ever survived the scientific method.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Even most of science does not survive the scientific method...
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    The stuff we actually use does, though, like GPS and surface tension and anti-coagulants. The replication crisis is mostly an issue on the cutting edge.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      I'd put my money on most research that wouldn't be replicated successfully if eventually tested being industry propaganda, psychology, and sociology. There's likely a lot of unchallenged complete garbage that goes back many many years. The cool cutting edge scientific research that's just too new (or too difficult) to have been replicated yet is always going to be somewhat of an issue, but it's the wrong stuff that's been around for ages that worries me most. Not only because of what it's influenced in all this time, but because when something believed to be true for a long time is invalidated it can cause problems for a lot of other research that was built off those lies, not to mention huge amounts of wasted time/effort/money.
      - wizzwizz4 3y ago
        > but because when something believed to be true for a long time is invalidated it can cause problems for a lot of other research that was built off those lies, Most of the examples of flawed research (e.g. Thenaros; single-factor treatments of cancer/aging/neurodegeneration (e.g. Aβ*56, telomeres); those MMR vaccine claims in 1998) were known to be erroneous by experts in the field long before they were officially debunked. Some of them have yet to be officially debunked (e.g. Sigmund Freud's theories of psychosexual development; the high-/low-functioning autism distinction; "ABA is harmless and curative"; Blanchard's typology; most use of revealed preference theory; "React is fast"), so many outsiders (e.g. people who decide who gets grant funding) still consider their advocates experts in their respective fields – but the claimed results are just so obviously wrong that they're ignored wherever you can get away with ignoring them. Academic science is eventually correct, but sometimes it takes a long time getting there. Even so, you can usually tell the difference between "academia knows this" and "academia claims this but something went wrong": all the examples I've given are of the same, largely-social, phenomenon.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 3y ago
I don't see how it follows that primary sources from Roman times that still exist should lead to keeping an open mind about Atlantis, psychic phenomena and other conspiracy theories.
- ulizzle 3y ago
  What about the word conspiracy makes all conspiracies false? This is yalls logical fallacy “Guy fawkes is about to destroy Westminster palace!” “Tinfoil hats”
- technothrasher 3y ago
  I suspect they were referring to the previous sentence about lost and suppressed history. Not that this is any better reason, but at least it follows the usual argument from ignorance path rather than being a weird non-sequitur about Roman times.
Tanoc 3y ago
Well part of that is that what we consider "Roman" culture and history is actually the culture and history of hundreds of societies that the Romans became administrators of. That's one reason why there were so many places like Austria, Romania, Byzantium, and Catalonia that claimed to be Roman successor states. It could be argued that true Roman history ended in 90BCE and from that point on it became more "Classical Imperial Europe" history because their administration had become so massive and encompassing. So much of that supposedly Roman history details the people of Iberia, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Rhineland. Through their own biased lens they were really historians of the cultures they turned into protectorates.

jprd 3y ago

Well said! Troy alone is a great example.

timeon 3y ago
Which example do you mean in particular? If it is Iliad - that one was written ~400 years later. And the war was probably during the late Bronze Age collapse. So I wonder how many contemporary accounts were preserved at that time.

WalterBright 3y ago

> What’s amazing about the Romans is that theirs was and how many primary sources still exists. Because they had writing and used it.

happytiger 3y ago
If the rulers of the the eastern emperors are regarded as Romans, then the Roman Empire did not fall until the 15 century. Many historians would prefer 1453 as the date of the fall of the Roman Empire. That’s a fair bit later than people realize.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Also, no one bothered to systematically eliminate the Roman books. This is different from, say, the Spanish systematically looking for and destroying Aztec and Mayan codices; and the Aztecs before them had systematically looked for and destroyed Mayan works.

WalterBright 3y ago

No psychic phenomena has ever survived the scientific method.

ekianjo 3y ago
Even most of science does not survive the scientific method...
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  The stuff we actually use does, though, like GPS and surface tension and anti-coagulants. The replication crisis is mostly an issue on the cutting edge.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    I'd put my money on most research that wouldn't be replicated successfully if eventually tested being industry propaganda, psychology, and sociology. There's likely a lot of unchallenged complete garbage that goes back many many years. The cool cutting edge scientific research that's just too new (or too difficult) to have been replicated yet is always going to be somewhat of an issue, but it's the wrong stuff that's been around for ages that worries me most. Not only because of what it's influenced in all this time, but because when something believed to be true for a long time is invalidated it can cause problems for a lot of other research that was built off those lies, not to mention huge amounts of wasted time/effort/money.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      > but because when something believed to be true for a long time is invalidated it can cause problems for a lot of other research that was built off those lies, Most of the examples of flawed research (e.g. Thenaros; single-factor treatments of cancer/aging/neurodegeneration (e.g. Aβ*56, telomeres); those MMR vaccine claims in 1998) were known to be erroneous by experts in the field long before they were officially debunked. Some of them have yet to be officially debunked (e.g. Sigmund Freud's theories of psychosexual development; the high-/low-functioning autism distinction; "ABA is harmless and curative"; Blanchard's typology; most use of revealed preference theory; "React is fast"), so many outsiders (e.g. people who decide who gets grant funding) still consider their advocates experts in their respective fields – but the claimed results are just so obviously wrong that they're ignored wherever you can get away with ignoring them. Academic science is eventually correct, but sometimes it takes a long time getting there. Even so, you can usually tell the difference between "academia knows this" and "academia claims this but something went wrong": all the examples I've given are of the same, largely-social, phenomenon.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 3y ago

I don't see how it follows that primary sources from Roman times that still exist should lead to keeping an open mind about Atlantis, psychic phenomena and other conspiracy theories.

ulizzle 3y ago
What about the word conspiracy makes all conspiracies false? This is yalls logical fallacy “Guy fawkes is about to destroy Westminster palace!” “Tinfoil hats”
technothrasher 3y ago
I suspect they were referring to the previous sentence about lost and suppressed history. Not that this is any better reason, but at least it follows the usual argument from ignorance path rather than being a weird non-sequitur about Roman times.

Tanoc 3y ago

Well part of that is that what we consider "Roman" culture and history is actually the culture and history of hundreds of societies that the Romans became administrators of. That's one reason why there were so many places like Austria, Romania, Byzantium, and Catalonia that claimed to be Roman successor states. It could be argued that true Roman history ended in 90BCE and from that point on it became more "Classical Imperial Europe" history because their administration had become so massive and encompassing. So much of that supposedly Roman history details the people of Iberia, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Rhineland. Through their own biased lens they were really historians of the cultures they turned into protectorates.