DiscussMormonism.com

Is there such a thing as "undisputed historical facts"?

Generally speaking there are historical events we can feel confident in agreeing upon. For example, we may agree that GWB won the Presidential election the past two terms. (Some may disagree with even that, however.)

How can we know undisputed historical fact? Is there such a thing as historical objectivity? Why or why not?

Interesting questions.

I'm not sure. History is just a bunch of writings, written by imperfect humans through a bias.

Now, some things make it much more certain.

Legal documents, for one, hold more weight than a journal. If a legal document is found, it's pretty safe to assume it's an undisputed historical fact.

But what about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. Is that REALLY an undisputed fact? Is there still the possibility that he did not marry anyone other than Emma? If not, why? Because we have multiple journal entries that attest to that he did? Does 2 entries give something a % more chance to be historical fact? Does three give it x^y %? How many entries does it take to admit it as fact?

The same question could be asked (with similar value) of any current fact. Is there any such thing as an undisputed fact? Does true objectivity exist with regard to anything?

This is the postmodern side of Mormon apologetics coming out.

Canucklehead wrote:The same question could be asked (with similar value) of any current fact. Is there any such thing as an undisputed fact? Does true objectivity exist with regard to anything?

This is the postmodern side of Mormon apologetics coming out.

How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Are you talking about being in the Matrix here?

Barring that, yes, there are MANY scientific principles which are considered fact.

Sure, there are some very complex sciences that we know very little about. Health, global climate, archeology, astronomy, etc., but we know a great deal about a great many other disciplines.

Canucklehead wrote:The same question could be asked (with similar value) of any current fact. Is there any such thing as an undisputed fact? Does true objectivity exist with regard to anything?

This is the postmodern side of Mormon apologetics coming out.

So I take it you do not believe in objectivity? I don't want to address epistemology in general in this thread; I only want to talk about the implications of or possibilities for or against "undisputed historical facts."

Scottie wrote:Interesting questions.

I'm not sure. History is just a bunch of writings, written by imperfect humans through a bias.

Now, some things make it much more certain.

Legal documents, for one, hold more weight than a journal. If a legal document is found, it's pretty safe to assume it's an undisputed historical fact.

But what about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. Is that REALLY an undisputed fact? Is there still the possibility that he did not marry anyone other than Emma? If not, why? Because we have multiple journal entries that attest to that he did? Does 2 entries give something a % more chance to be historical fact? Does three give it x^y %? How many entries does it take to admit it as fact?

You make good points. Personally I also would choose a legal document, or even a legal court hearing. The reason being a judge has to weigh two sides of a story. He is given the information and figures it out from there. In the case of Joseph Smith and polygamy a judge found that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. After reading the Temple Lot case he most likely ruled this way because those that claimed Joseph was a polygamist contradicted themselves and each other in testimony. The other side did not. Pretty telling if you ask me.

RockHeaded

Ok, so a few people believe that old legal documents should be granted more weight in the historical record. Do these records exist apart from theory or current interpretation? Are they part of a past that can be "discovered" much like finding gold in a river?

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Ok, so a few people believe that old legal documents should be granted more weight in the historical record. Do these records exist apart from theory or current interpretation? Are they part of a past that can be "discovered" much like finding gold in a river?

Are you asking if a newly discovered legal document could change the perceived "historical fact"?

Well, if one document can undo a whole "fact", then the fact wasn't very well constructed in the first place.

In my mind, there has to be a LOT of supporting evidence for something to be considered a historical fact. The "historical fact" that Jews were killed in the holocaust probably won't be overturned by a legal document anytime soon. The supporting evidence is too overwhelming.

I suppose it's possible for a legal document to do this, but I find it highly improbable.

Now, something like the question of whether Joseph Smith slept with his polygamists wives couldn't really be classified as fact. It is a theory, supported by some some pretty good evidence, but in my opinion, not enough to make it "fact". It seems highly probable from the evidence we do have, but that could all be overturned by a single document someday.

Hi LoaP,

I think we can say things with varying degrees of probability. Some events I'd say have vanishingly small probabilities of being untrue, so it's safe to call them "facts". But nothing is entirely beyond all possible doubt. The word "fact" will never again mean quite what it did during the Enlightenment.

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:Hi LoaP,

I think we can say things with varying degrees of probability. Some events I'd say have vanishingly small probabilities of being untrue, so it's safe to call them "facts". But nothing is entirely beyond all possible doubt. The word "fact" will never again mean quite what it did during the Enlightenment.

-Chris

One can hope. However, occasionally some folks still use the word "fact" in a very Enlightenment-oriented sense.

What do you think the problems are confronting the historian or student of history regarding objectivity?