LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.)
LifeOnaPlate wrote:What do you think the problems are confronting the historian or student of history regarding objectivity?
Yeesh. That's a huge question.
If you don't feel like going through it (I realize what a big Q it is) maybe a yes or no for now: is there such thing as "undisputed historical fact"?
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
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
Hey RH, have you read "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton?
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
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
Hey RH, have you read "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton?
No offense, but as for this thread I'd like to keep it on topic. Unless you have some highlights from the book with which to demonstrate undisputed historical fact, etc.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote:If you don't feel like going through it (I realize what a big Q it is) maybe a yes or no for now: is there such thing as "undisputed historical fact"?
I wouldn't use the phrase. But I suppose that if somebody used it to refer to something that nobody but the anti-realists would dispute (like "JFK was assassinated" or "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor"), I wouldn't complain about it either.
Sure, I think there are some undisputed historical facts. Events, in reality, do occur and can be verified. People do say and do things that are documented.
What's usually disputed is the interpretation of historical facts.
It's not generally* disputed, for example, that Joseph Smith married lots of women. What's disputed is the interpretation of that fact.
*sorry, rockheaded, I know you and other restorationists dispute it, but I think you're in very deep denial
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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?
It is a historical fact that Hamilton was shot by Burr in the same way that we know Joseph Smith had sex with multiple women, some as young as 14.
That is historical fact. There is no such thing as undisputed historical fact except in the cockeyed world of TBMormonism.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning