Bond...James Bond wrote:Some things are undisputed:
Julius Caesar existed and was an important Roman figure.
Some things are disputed:
Was he bisexual? That whole King of Bithnyia thing makes you wonder...but nothing after that. Hmm...it's a matter of perception after that. But people agree that Caesar existed. Now the problem with Book of Mormon claims is that they can't even establish Part 1, the Nephites existed. The best Mormons have, as DCP started his recent speech with, is the spiritual witness. Guess what, that's not evidence, that's an excuse for lack of evidence.
But beyond the written accounts (first hand, second hand, anecdotal etc) you have to look at the physical evidence.
Dinosaurs existed and we know that cause of bones. No written accounts but the physical evidence is concrete right?
All that Book of Mormon stuff is based only upon the Book of Mormon story (not first hand account). No physical evidence (or evidence that is vastly outta date like Mammoths or Mammoths on an island off the coast of Alaska) so you have to take the issue with a mighty big hunk of salt. your second hand manuscript (the Golden Plates) disappeared so...also no first hand accounts, even though those Mayans were writing. So you end up with at the minimum, a 3rd hand account with no supporting physical evidence. Hopefully people will use their common sense, but I dispair that some people have any.
Interesting points. One aspect you brought in that others hadn't is the physical record of the past (bones, etc.) which adds an interesting element to the stew.
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
Bond...James Bond wrote:Some things are undisputed:
Julius Caesar existed and was an important Roman figure.
Some things are disputed:
Was he bisexual? That whole King of Bithnyia thing makes you wonder...but nothing after that. Hmm...it's a matter of perception after that. But people agree that Caesar existed. Now the problem with Book of Mormon claims is that they can't even establish Part 1, the Nephites existed. The best Mormons have, as DCP started his recent speech with, is the spiritual witness. Guess what, that's not evidence, that's an excuse for lack of evidence.
But beyond the written accounts (first hand, second hand, anecdotal etc) you have to look at the physical evidence.
Dinosaurs existed and we know that cause of bones. No written accounts but the physical evidence is concrete right?
All that Book of Mormon stuff is based only upon the Book of Mormon story (not first hand account). No physical evidence (or evidence that is vastly outta date like Mammoths or Mammoths on an island off the coast of Alaska) so you have to take the issue with a mighty big hunk of salt. your second hand manuscript (the Golden Plates) disappeared so...also no first hand accounts, even though those Mayans were writing. So you end up with at the minimum, a 3rd hand account with no supporting physical evidence. Hopefully people will use their common sense, but I dispair that some people have any.
Interesting points. One aspect you brought in that others hadn't is the physical record of the past (bones, etc.) which adds an interesting element to the stew.
The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Bond...James Bond wrote:The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
Which would lead the the question about whether data itself is theory laden.
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
Bond...James Bond wrote:The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
Which would lead the the question about whether data itself is theory laden.
Interesting. Could you explain further?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Bond...James Bond wrote:The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
Which would lead the the question about whether data itself is theory laden.
Interesting. Could you explain further?
Briefly, especially in the early 1900s, history was becoming professionalized. AS CK was saying, historians borrowed a lot from the Enlightenment perspective, and they also borrowed a lot from the scientists who borrowed from that perspective. They viewed themselves as standing at the dawn of a new day of truth. They were standing at the site of a great archaeological dig of historical facts which they must merely uncover and display as they are. Each historian believed their work was like mining bricks, and each brick would be added to the house of history until it become as grand monument of the past. This view was turned on its head (largely due to WW I and WWII, and other environmental factors.) It soon became evident that the way historians presented their findings created disagreements of interpretation, etc. Historical data, as it is, doesn't say much without the prior interpretation, background, knowledge of the person who discovers and presents it. This is a very rough explanation. But it gives an idea of the subject.
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
Jason Bourne wrote:No. THere are many undisputed fact. Joseph Smith was shot in June 27, 1844. This is an undisputed historical fact.
Really? I thought he fell out of a window and died. Hmm, church videos and lessons really are not clear but the Mormons be damned if they don't have motab belting out "Oh Poor wayfaring man of grief".
I think you know what I was getting at when isolating Mormonism, Jason. To a TBM it is an undisputed fact that joe saw god and Christ while he was praying in the grove.
That would be "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief."
Whatever, nazi.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Bond...James Bond wrote:The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
Which would lead the the question about whether data itself is theory laden.
By definition "data" is not a theory, its the description of information. Your postmodern babbling is increasingly trite.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Bond...James Bond wrote:The danged thing is that the physical evidence is open to interpretation (and misinterpretation by those dang Creationists who want to put dinosaurs and humans in the same time frame) as well. It's all a madhouse really.
Which would lead the the question about whether data itself is theory laden.
By definition "data" is not a theory, its the description of information. Your postmodern babbling is increasingly trite.
Wow, increasingly. That's almost coherent.
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
Part of the problem is that data must be found, data must be selected, and data must be interpreted. The historical narrative is influenced as much by what is left out as by what is included. Much of the best data is lost forever. Other data comes from textual records, which were written by biased human beings in another time and place who may not have been trying to answer the questions the historian is trying to answer, whose knowledge of events was perspectival and limited, and who may have had reasons for representing events inaccurately. And then there's the matter of interpretation. Every historian has certain ideas about how historical data should be interpreted that he has inherited from his forbears. He has inherited ideas about which stories are worth telling, how they should be told, how data should be found, which kinds of data are more or less reliable, how one combines data to construct a narrative, etc. I know that for people coming from a strong Enlightenment perspective all of this may sound horribly wishy-washy, but its actually quite important for understanding both the weaknesses and the strengths of our practice of history. Great book on the subject for anyone who's interested: Telling the Truth about History.