Subject:
|
Re: Veracity, the historical record, and supernatural events
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 18:19:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > n.b. I'm no historian, and I'd love to have LFB chime in here, this is his
> > > area of specialty.
>
> Ack, my ears are burning! (Or are those my cloven hooves?) :)
I've been out with you and seen you ogling the girls wearing Devil Horns.
I've also never seen you with your shoes off. So... no comment.
> > > Nevertheless we still can (and SHOULD) reason about what we believe the
> > > historical record to be, based on our estimates of the veracity of the
> > > evidence presented. This aligns with the scientific method.
>
> Okay. Big big BIG beef.
not sure if your beef is with me or not. But suffice it to say I don't
disagree with what you said in the next paragraph, per se.
> The West has never been fully honest
> with itself as regards cliometry (the measure of history); we
> still teach people that history is something certain and definite
> that can be known through science--and that it is, therefore, a
> "social science". It's not. It's a liberal art like language or
> literature, not a "science" like sociology or even anthropology
> (which I actually have some issues with as well, but that's another
> rant for another day).
At least I don't THINK I do. To the extent that history is a recitation of
facts I think those facts are amenable to validation or falsification via
the scientific method. To the extent that history draws conclusions, it's no
longer descriptive and thus is, as you say, a liberal art.
Do you disagree with that? I don't think that it conflicts with the point I
am making, that we can and should attempt to validate or falsify historical
factual claims as a precursor to trying to understand their meaning or
implications. (validate the miracle before accepting it as a proof of
divinity when it is so offered)
> > > That faith I haven't got.
> > >
> > > That faith I haven't needed.
>
> I'd argue that you do have faith--it's just pointing the other
> way. (See the message I posted yesterday.) Not that this is
> in any way impugning your reasoning, just pointing out that some
> degree of faith is necessary to believe that science will keep
> refining its explanatory power. To some degree we all have that
> same faith, every time we flip a light switch or look at our
> wristwatches.
I went down this road before and didn't get all the way to the end. Yes, it
takes "faith" in our senses and their validity, yes it takes "faith" in
logic to use it to reason about things, etc. But I think that's a semantic
sort of faith, not the same sort that is required to believe in the
supernatural.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
