---

I have to admit the thing I hate most about doing academic history is approaching texts with skepticism. I generally want to assume the writer of something is being forthright unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

---

But don't you understand that the suspension of skepticism just because it feels good is intellectually dishonest? Your suppose to think the other way around: the default position is unabashed skepticism, unless there is a good reason (read: evidence) to think otherwise.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

But don't you understand that the suspension of skepticism just because it feels good is intellectually dishonest? Your suppose to think the other way around: the default position is unabashed skepticism, unless there is a good reason (read: evidence) to think otherwise.

---

Exactly.  The stance of "unabashed" or thoroughgoing skepticism leaves the world essentially ignorant of it history.  Most of what we know of history is necessarily speculative, but nonetheless reliable.  History is not science.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:26 am on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 5:24 pm on July 9, 2009

---

 

  But don't you understand that the suspension of skepticism just because it feels good is intellectually dishonest? Your suppose to think the other way around: the default position is unabashed skepticism, unless there is a good reason (read: evidence) to think otherwise.

---

Why? The thing written *is* evidence.

---

Exactly. The stance of "unabashed" or thoroughgoing skepticism leaves the world essentially ignorant of it history. Most of what we know of history is necessarily speculative, but nonetheless reliable. History is not science.

---

History is not science? This has to be the most absurd statement that you have made in a long while. Historians build models, make predictions from those models and test these predictions and they look for evidence that refutes their explanation.

I am quite shocked that you both buy into the circular reasoning stated by osmoticdespair. A text cannot be evidence that its content is factual, since it would presuppose that the content was indeed factual. It is like claiming that Mein Kampf is accurate because the book itself proclaims itself as truth. This is a very fundamental idea that needs to be understood.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

It's not that a bit of writing is evidence for its own correctness. It's that a bit of writing is evidence for the things it makes reference to.

---

So Mien Kampf is evidence for the genetic inferiority of International Jewry since it refers to it? Hardly. Written texts are only reliable as evidence if it can be corroborated with physical evidence or other unbiased or counterbiased texts. That's why we have categories such as

physical-historical necessity
direct physical evidence

etc.

not just the category "this person wrote it, it fits my a priori ideology, therefore it is true".

Post edited at 9:59 am on July 9, 2009 by Moridin

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

You clearly didn't bother to read my posts in this topic. I already argued that hagiographies have to be approached with skepticism.

---

I did. You argued that skepticism as the default position would somehow undermine the content of history as a discipline. I simply showed that this was not the case.

Also, please address my refutation of your "history is not science" claim. Thanks.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

As for history and science, history is necessarily not observable.  We see only the effects and speculate the cause.  There is no way to test those theories in the way science tests theories.  One can only interpret or reinterpret evidence until new evidence is found.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

I actually said that "unabashed" skepticism, the belief that nothing can be believed without conclusive evidence to support it undermines the discipline of history. I stand by that.

As for history and science, history is necessarily not observable. We see only the effects and speculate the cause. There is no way to test those theories in the way science tests theories. One can only interpret or reinterpret evidence until new evidence is found.

---

Are you really claiming that historical theories are not testable? This is almost as absurd as creationists claiming that evolution is not science because some evolutionary changes happened in the past. Both of these twisted ideas are mistaken. It is not the events, but the tests that needs to be repeatable.

In history, as well as other areas of science, you make predictions from models and test these predictions. If the predictions are confirmed, then the historical model is corroborated. If the predictions are confirmed to be false, the historical model is refuted. The models we have enable us to make dangerous predictions about future findings, and it is this that makes history (and evolution) science.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now.

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον

---

Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing.

Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now.

---

So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing.  

 Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now.

---

So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How?

---

The Holocaust is one of the most documented events to have happened in history, and one of the most analysed.

History though is more like trial by jury than science, and in that regard we can say the holocaust is "beyond reasonable doubt".

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον

---

Quote: from Moridin at 9:34 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Treating history as science is a very first 19th century/first half of the 20th century kind of thing.

  Generally people are more guarded about seeking scientific objectivity in history now.

---

 

 So to you history is merely a form of cultural bigotry? Do you think that we can use historical methods and be justified in that the Holocaust happened? How?

---

There is more in the world than on the one hand science and on the other cultural bigotry.

The Holocaust is one of the most documented events to have happened in history, and one of the most analysed.

History though is more like trial by jury than science, and in that regard we can say the holocaust is "beyond reasonable doubt".

---

So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself?

1. Do you think it is possible to make empirical predictions from historical models? For example, do you think that the Holocaust model predicts that demographics taken before and after the Holocaust will differ substantially with the latter demographics showing a much smaller number of Jews than prior ones?

2. Do you think that it is possible to test empirical predicts from historical models? Do you think it is possible to investigate various demographics taken around that time? Or investigate archaeological findings?

3. Do you think it is possible to have enough corroboration from independent sources that all converge on a single conclusion or set of conclusions? Do you think it is possible to find that physical-historical necessity, physical evidence, unbiased and counter biased writings and the generalities of eyewitness testimony to converge on a single conclusion regarding the Holocaust?

If you answered yes to any of this you agree that history is science, or uses scientific methods to draw conclusions.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

So if all historians one day decided through a democratic vote that the Holocaust did not occur, history would change itself?

---

But that wouldn't happen now, anymore than if you had a trial with a video of a guy doing a murder and laughing and saying "I love murdering people" he'd be likely to get an aquittal.

Post edited at 2:23 pm on July 10, 2009 by osmoticdespair

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον