"Undisputed Historical Facts"

[_CaliforniaKid]

[...]Telling the Truth about History.

Author?

Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[...]Telling the Truth about History.

Author?

Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob.

I'll add it to my wish list, thanks. Also recommended is Peter Novick's That Noble Dream.

[_CaliforniaKid]

[...]Telling the Truth about History.

Author?

Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob.

I'll add it to my wish list, thanks. Also recommended is Peter Novick's That Noble Dream.

Yeah, but that one's a little too thick, dense, and academic for me to feel comfortable recommending it to anyone. It's also more of a survey of approaches to the objectivity question than an attempt to answer it.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[...]Telling the Truth about History.

Author?

Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob.

I'll add it to my wish list, thanks. Also recommended is Peter Novick's That Noble Dream.

Yeah, but that one's a little too thick, dense, and academic for me to feel comfortable recommending it to anyone. It's also more of a survey of approaches to the objectivity question than an attempt to answer it.

That's what I liked about it. It was also kind of like one of those pictures within pictures within pictures kind of things.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think it's so much that the "facts" themselves are what tends to be disputed, history-wise. As CaliforniaKid put it so well, it is the handling of those facts which people haggle over. Take, for example, the death of Joseph Smith. Probably, we can all agree that he died in Carthage at the hands of an angry mob. But what is the best, most accurate way to sketch out the details of this? Would it be "factual" to point out that he drank alcohol prior to his death, and/or that he had a pistol that he used? I would say, "Yes, we have good evidence that these things are in fact true." I think where one might run into trouble, though, is in describing Joseph Smith's death as "occurring during a shoot-out," on the one hand, or as being like "a lamb led to the slaughter," on the other. I don't really see how the physical, factual aspects of his death are disputable. Perhaps LoaP can enlighten us?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't think it's so much that the "facts" themselves are what tends to be disputed, history-wise. As CaliforniaKid put it so well, it is the handling of those facts which people haggle over.

Even with this I have to disagree. I know my recollection isn't perfect, even short term. We may have certain writings, etc. from the past but they are products of particular people with particular preunderstanding, worldview, opinions, prejudice, etc.

Take, for example, the death of Joseph Smith. Probably, we can all agree that he died in Carthage at the hands of an angry mob. But what is the best, most accurate way to sketch out the details of this? Would it be "factual" to point out that he drank alcohol prior to his death, and/or that he had a pistol that he used? I would say, "Yes, we have good evidence that these things are in fact true."

Some of that good evidence, incidentally, can be found in the HC. Likewise we have witnesses who claim they literally saw an angel and golden plates. This evidence, then would be equal to the accounts of having wine at Carthage, and Joseph Smith's pepperbox pistol. "Yes, we have good evidence that these things are in fact true."[/quote]

[_William Schryver]

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?

"Undisputed historical fact?" Simple. Take a vote of exmormons, and you'll discover the only true and living way of looking at things that happened a century and a half ago.

[_Some Schmo]

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?

"Undisputed historical fact?" Simple. Take a vote of exmormons, and you'll discover the only true and living way of looking at things that happened a century and a half ago.

You're confusing exmos with the folks in your ward.

[_William Schryver]

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?

"Undisputed historical fact?" Simple. Take a vote of exmormons, and you'll discover the only true and living way of looking at things that happened a century and a half ago.

You're confusing exmos with the folks in your ward.

Then that's a step up. I usually confuse them with a herd of sheep.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think it's so much that the "facts" themselves are what tends to be disputed, history-wise. As CaliforniaKid put it so well, it is the handling of those facts which people haggle over.

Even with this I have to disagree. I know my recollection isn't perfect, even short term.

Your "recollection" is totally beside the point. It has nothing to do with material facts. Whether or not you remembered to turn off the stove does not change the fact that said stove does in fact exist, and that, in fact, it is capable of being turned off or on.

We may have certain writings, etc. from the past but they are products of particular people with particular preunderstanding, worldview, opinions, prejudice, etc.

That may be true, but, again, none of this really alters the facts as they are.

Take, for example, the death of Joseph Smith. Probably, we can all agree that he died in Carthage at the hands of an angry mob. But what is the best, most accurate way to sketch out the details of this? Would it be "factual" to point out that he drank alcohol prior to his death, and/or that he had a pistol that he used? I would say, "Yes, we have good evidence that these things are in fact true."

Some of that good evidence, incidentally, can be found in the HC.

So, then, these are "undisputed historical facts"?

Likewise we have witnesses who claim they literally saw an angel and golden plates. This evidence, then would be equal to the accounts of having wine at Carthage, and Joseph Smith's pepperbox pistol.

How do you figure? Probably each of us has seen, or knows about the existence of, pistols and wine. Nobody (as far as I know) would dispute the claim that these things exist, and are real. Probably, you can head down to your local Walmart and purchase both of these things. On the other hand, I doubt that many---if any of us---has seen an angel or the golden plates.