Historical ignorance

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by snoots
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Totally - but what I'll do is ask you to contemplate this.

Considering all the perspectives surrounding any event, what is an "historical fact"?

it's unknowable - even perhaps to the point of the actors on the historical stage in respect of their own actions. in a broadly analagous way, utopia is unachievable.

in both cases it does not invalidate aspiration towards the goal, as long as that is approached with a great deal of caution. because, equally in both cases, the belief that one holds the key to the ultimate prize or truth is very dangerous. i suspect you know by now how i feel about utopianists.

and with that in mind, i further suspect - though as always i could be wrong - a similar sentiment is behind the vigour with which you and dc have opposed my arguments. though as i have done before, i'd argue i'm just mizundastood
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


where things differ is that i believe a form of obective reality does exist, it's just not graspable. whether the same is true of utopia i very much doubt. anything else suggests to me a non-materialist view of the universe which the skeptic in me finds difficult to engage with.

[egb_hibs]

ps - i think you were aiming at something broader which i've tried to address, but being pedantic, i think things like jfk was shot on a certain date, are solid historical facts.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

it's unknowable - even perhaps to the point of the actors on the historical stage in respect of their own actions. in a broadly analagous way, utopia is unachievable.

So then how is it to be transferred as knowledge?

[snoots]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i think things like jfk was shot on a certain date, are solid historical facts.

As are football results, dates Prime Ministers were elected, but on their own they are pretty useless data when it comes down to historical understanding, as in who eventually won the league and what crooked refs' did what in their favour and why, why did the electorate choose to vote for that PM, who killed JFK and why. It's those nuts and bolts which are arguable, and have many perspectives. That can be trasnferred as "knowledge" but it would be knowledge as a single perspective, allowing the person to build their own perspective is true history.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by snoots
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As are football results, dates Prime Ministers were elected, but on their own they are pretty useless data when it comes down to historical understanding, as in who eventually won the league and what crooked refs' did what in their favour and why, why did the electorate choose to vote for that PM, who killed JFK and why. It's those nuts and bolts which are arguable, and have many perspectives. That can be trasnferred as "knowledge" but it would be knowledge as a single perspective, allowing the person to build their own perspective is true history.

Correct. And as soon as you set foot off that very narrow path of dates and reign-lengths, you are in disputed territory. What good is knowing the date of the Battle of Culloden if you don't know what happened? And what happened is controversial. There are indeed historical facts, but in themselves they are meaningless. We could get the wee buggers to memorise a timeline of dates I suppose egb, if that's what you mean. Then they would have a framework of dates which meant nothing to them.

I'm guessing that he is assuming a wider breadth of historical consensus tham actually exists?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There is nothing that historians agree upon, nothing. Taking your own example, M, how much consensus is there on the shooting of JFK, beyond the date of his assassination?

[egb_hibs]

I don't disagree with the point about most things bar dates being disputable. I strongly disagree with snoots assertion that letting people form their own view is 'true' history. Surely by your own argument there is no such thing?

I also agree that there is limited utility in memorising a series of dates - but not none at all. If nothing else it can provide a framework that is an index into the history of ideas and actions. It can infer progressions, and that sort of thing. This seemed to be in part what the linked article was about.

As for consensus - of course this will vary by case. For instance, I imagine that there is a broad consensus that the holocaust happened, while there will very likely be more debate over Hitler's motivation. I have no problem with either, but it doesn't do to conflate the varying degrees of interpretation that apply from one to the other.

I've been thinking about all this some more, and the more I do, the deeper my failure to 'get it' becomes. Consider historical evidence for instance. DC, you inferred above that I was mistaken to conclude you would not take an evidence based stance. Assuming this means, that on occasion, you might, then what does this actually mean:

Evidence surely only has meaning if it points to some objective reality. If subjectivity is not a distorted perception of an objective reality, but the nature of reality itself, then what does an accumulation of evidence progress you towards? An understanding of what?

The acceptance of the notion of evidence, without an acceptance of a notion of objective reality (however unreachable) seems to me to be a logical fallacy.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't disagree with the point about most things bar dates being disputable. I strongly disagree with snoots assertion that letting people form their own view is 'true' history. Surely by your own argument there is no such thing?

OK for "true history" read "real history" or a "real history lesson" - so's we don't get mixed up with "historical truth".

I also agree that there is limited utility in memorising a series of dates - but not none at all. If nothing else it can provide a framework that is an index into the history of ideas and actions. It can infer progressions, and that sort of thing. This seemed to be in part what the linked article was about.

Thing is even these are better remembered by pupils if they discover them by themselves. Drumming them into them causes boredom and more importantly takes up loads of time.

As for consensus - of course this will vary by case. For instance, I imagine that there is a broad consensus that the holocaust happened, while there will very likely be more debate over Hitler's motivation. I have no problem with either, but it doesn't do to conflate the varying degrees of interpretation that apply from one to the other.

But why stop there (and what have cornflakes got to do with it), if allowed the pupil would discover that the Holocaust was just the tip of the iceberg, and would be allowed to see that the 20th Century concentration camps were one pinnacle of the previous 18 centuries of Anti-Semitism. Telling people that Hitler didn't like the Jews, so he killed a lot of them is as one dimensional as saying it happened between 1933 and 1945.

I've been thinking about all this some more, and the more I do, the deeper my failure to 'get it' becomes. Consider historical evidence for instance. DC, you inferred above that I was mistaken to conclude you would not take an evidence based stance. Assuming this means, that on occasion, you might, then what does this actually mean:

I think what you don't get is level and depth of evaluating evidence which DC's method wold go into. My history teacher drummed into me "argument" "content" and "presentation" - approach every bit of evidence equally, but you don't leave them as such.. Argument being your findings, content being the proof to back them up, and presentation being the way you put them accross (which was worth 10% of the marks in the exam). He never told me any dates at any time.

[Bartok]

Wot he said.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by snoots
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But why stop there (and what have cornflakes got to do with it), if allowed the pupil would discover that the Holocaust was just the tip of the iceberg, and would be allowed to see that the 20th Century concentration camps were one pinnacle of the previous 18 centuries of Anti-Semitism. Telling people that Hitler didn't like the Jews, so he killed a lot of them is as one dimensional as saying it happened between 1933 and 1945.

Would they discover that? Is that the 'right' thing to discover? Why?

And noone is advocating telling people simply 'hitler didn't like jews'

I think what you don't get is level and depth of evaluating evidence which DC's method wold go into.

I don't believe I have given you any grounds for reaching that conclusion?

Meanwhile neither of you guys has addressed the logic black-hole achieved by accepting the notion of evidence but not the notion of any sense of objective reality - what is it evidence of? what is it is an artifact of?

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming to the view that you guys are wrong about there being no objective truth in human actions and therefore in history.

Assuming you accept that we are products of biology, then if we understood enough about the brain, and could monitor it, and had a suitable language for describing the results, then we could assess 'objectively' the way someone acted, right through from tracking the physicality of brain formation, through the intra-brain reactions caused by absorbing experiences etc, and eventually to the cerebral processes that culminate in a 'decision'. In fact we could assess people's actions with more accuracy than the individual themselves could reach in reflection upon themself, given the influence of the unconscious etc.

Of course, any significant event in human history usually involves many people, so you're talking about incalculable complexity in assessing the contributions to a given event, even if the data was available and processable, which it clearly isn't and never will be for past events - though who knows, at some time in the future we may all be 'monitored'
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


but because something is incalculable or unattainable is not the same as it not being so. people used to think that thunder and lightning were the gods fighting etc

therefore, while an objective assessment of someone's actions either in history, where they are mediated through another's perception and bias as well as your own, or while they're sitting opposite you, and filtered simply through your own, is not technically achievable, it doesn't invalidate the pursuit of that aim.

This is a bit of a philosophical argument, and probably not well put, but if you reject it (as I'm sure you will
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), I'd be interested in how you address the 'evidence' conundrum i've mentioned.

My history teacher drummed into me "argument" "content" and "presentation" - approach every bit of evidence equally, but you don't leave them as such.. Argument being your findings, content being the proof to back them up, and presentation being the way you put them accross (which was worth 10% of the marks in the exam). He never told me any dates at any time.

Great. That's fine as far as it goes. although the argument, content and finding thing is pretty much generic to any process of analysis and presentation.

But you're interested in history, and generalising from the specifics of your case is not the whole of the story.

with that in mind, changing tack then - what do you think is behind the historical ignorance the article DC linked to is worried about? this will after all address the subject of the thread!

Col, what about yourself?

[egb_hibs]

ps Col, as an aside - you accused me above of 'listening to the pope' - hopefully in jest
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


anyway, consider the following:

clearly the pope believes in the objective truth of the existence of god, it is, after all, his job.

but as you'll see in the following, he seems to consider the gospel accounts of divine revelation in human history to be entirely subjective. not only that he seems to deem that to be essential, and a strength of the christian outlook vs islam.

so, in short, if i were listening assiduously to the man-in-white, then my view would presumably be 'directed' towards your own.

there again, my view is based on a purely material and rational universe, versus his own. as for yours, well who can say
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that [reinterpretation of the koran -egb] because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations."

[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Meanwhile neither of you guys has addressed the logic black-hole achieved by accepting the notion of evidence but not the notion of any sense of objective reality - what is it evidence of? what is it is an artifact of?

I see the apparent logic in your argument; you seem to equate my identification of the interpretation of history as a modern human construct with a view that historical evidence has no intrinsic value since it relates to an unascertainable past. I do not agree with your logic there; I use the metaphor of the possession of a handful of pieces from a largely-lost jigsaw puzzle. The jigsaw puzzle did exist at one time, everyone knows that, but all that is left are these few pieces. We place them upon the table and try to make sense of them. We try to recreate the picture that they were part of, and any reconstruction has to fit the pieces that remain. But still there are numerous equally plausible interpretations of how the picture looked; how can we say which is the one which matched the original picture? The box is lost forever, like the majority of the pieces. It is fascinating to conjecture; but that is all it is.

The more I think about it, the more I'm coming to the view that you guys are wrong about there being no objective truth in human actions and therefore in history.

Objective ascertainable truth?

Assuming you accept that we are products of biology, then if we understood enough about the brain, and could monitor it, and had a suitable language for describing the results, then we could assess 'objectively' the way someone acted, right through from tracking the physicality of brain formation, through the intra-brain reactions caused by absorbing experiences etc, and eventually to the cerebral processes that culminate in a 'decision'. In fact we could assess people's actions with more accuracy than the individual themselves could reach in reflection upon themself, given the influence of the unconscious etc.

Of course, any significant event in human history usually involves many people, so you're talking about incalculable complexity in assessing the contributions to a given event, even if the data was available and processable, which it clearly isn't and never will be for past events - though who knows, at some time in the future we may all be 'monitored'
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Are you mad? Are you saying people's actions can potentially always be predicted or ascertained? I don't believe it.

but because something is incalculable or unattainable is not the same as it not being so. people used to think that thunder and lightning were the gods fighting etc

therefore, while an objective assessment of someone's actions either in history, where they are mediated through another's perception and bias as well as your own, or while they're sitting opposite you, and filtered simply through your own, is not technically achievable, it doesn't invalidate the pursuit of that aim.

Have you gone completely (as the Doc would say) hatstand?

This is a bit of a philosophical argument, and probably not well put, but if you reject it (as I'm sure you will
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), I'd be interested in how you address the 'evidence' conundrum i've mentioned.

See above.

Great. That's fine as far as it goes. although the argument, content and finding thing is pretty much generic to any process of analysis and presentation.

But you're interested in history, and generalising from the specifics of your case is not the whole of the story.

with that in mind, changing tack then - what do you think is behind the historical ignorance the article DC linked to is worried about? this will after all address the subject of the thread!

Col, what about yourself?

What is behind the article is a concern that people are ignorant of history of ANY kind, even your spoon-fed government or establishment line. Even your framework of dates would not help them as they'd know the Second World War started in 1939 and ended in 1945 without knowing why it was fought, who fought in it, and whether they were shooting M16s or waving spears. Give them a timeline and they'd take it down the bookies.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I see the apparent logic in your argument; you seem to equate my identification of the interpretation of history as a modern human construct with a view that historical evidence has no intrinsic value since it relates to an unascertainable past. I do not agree with your logic there; I use the metaphor of the possession of a handful of pieces from a largely-lost jigsaw puzzle. The jigsaw puzzle did exist at one time, everyone knows that, but all that is left are these few pieces. We place them upon the table and try to make sense of them. We try to recreate the picture that they were part of, and any reconstruction has to fit the pieces that remain. But still there are numerous equally plausible interpretations of how the picture looked; how can we say which is the one which matched the original picture? The box is lost forever, like the majority of the pieces. It is fascinating to conjecture; but that is all it is.

I'm fine with that in itself. but what does your jigsaw metaphor represent? In my interpretation of it, I understand my own position to be that of advocating the worth of a doomed attempt to figure out what the complete jigsaw might have been, whereas I understood you to view that ambition as naieve, even worthy of scorn?

Objective ascertainable truth?

No not ascertainable, and that is key. But it may be that the nature of the universe will never be ascertainable. Does that invalidate science?

Are you mad? Are you saying people's actions can potentially always be predicted or ascertained? I don't believe it.

Why don't you believe it? People used to refuse to believe the world wasn't the centre of the universe.

Does that scare you - and I don't mean that to be flamebait - if you're sensible it should feckin scare you? But rest easy, it will probably never be possible (thank the god of your choice) but unless you hold that we are something other than biological constructs, why is it theoretically impossible? If i'd tried to explain genetics to you a millenia ago you'd have cried madness, look where we are now.

I lack the grounding in philosophy or science to articulate this properly, but there is a massive difference between the unknown, even the unknowable and the non-existent. In my (perhaps mad) reasoning, anything that is physical has a physical explanation, whether we can (now or ever) grasp it. Another way of saying that is anything that is a product of nature has a natural explanation. Otherwise you're into the supernatural (in the literal sense of beyond nature rather than spooks and spectres)

Have you gone completely (as the Doc would say) hatstand?

Maybe I'm bonkers. Maybe I'm just not indoctrinated. Or maybe I'm just not afraid?

I've said it before Col, most rationalists - as far as I can deduce - bottle it when it comes to following through on the implications of their views.

I mean come on - if what we are is but a product of our biological brain, why is understanding the working of that any different than understanding the working of our lungs, other than it's more complex?

surely the difference is quantitive rather than qualititive? How can you as an athiest countenance any other possibility? It's a terrifying idea I grant you, but what's that got to do with reason or scientific truth (unless that's not allowed either
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)?

What is behind the article is a concern that people are ignorant of history of ANY kind, even your spoon-fed government or establishment line. Even your framework of dates would not help them as they'd know the Second World War started in 1939 and ended in 1945 without knowing why it was fought, who fought in it, and whether they were shooting M16s or waving spears. Give them a timeline and they'd take it down the bookies.

How do you think we should tackle it then?

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm fine with that in itself. but what does your jigsaw metaphor represent? In my interpretation of it, I understand my own position to be that of advocating the worth of a doomed attempt to figure out what the complete jigsaw might have been, whereas I understood you to view that ambition as naieve, even worthy of scorn?

In what sense is your attempt to reconstruct the picture from the fragments "worthy"? What is laudable about your interpretation that isn't laudable about mine, or anyone else's? It is no more worthy of scorn though than anyone else's.

No not ascertainable, and that is key. But it may be that the nature of the universe will never be ascertainable. Does that invalidate science?

No. Neither does the unascertainability of historical truth invalidate history. I am not advocating the end of history. Did you think I was? The thing about science is that it is really about testing theories to see if they are accurate, and until the theory is proved it remains theory. Somehow though you seem to see historical theory as different... you are suggesting that historical theories should be called facts until proven not to be. Or else you wouldn't be advocating the attempt by a teacher of history to impose his own interpretations on young and gullible minds.

Why don't you believe it? People used to refuse to believe the world wasn't the centre of the universe.

I don't believe it because a moment's consideratiom will reveal that it is not possible to know the minds of, say, Saladin, William Wallace and Hernan Cortes. What would you base your scientific analysis upon?

Does that scare you - and I don't mean that to be flamebait - if you're sensible it should feckin scare you? But rest easy, it will probably never be possible (thank the god of your choice) but unless you hold that we are something other than biological constructs, why is it theoretically impossible? If i'd tried to explain genetics to you a millenia ago you'd have cried madness, look where we are now.

Where are we to find the DNA samples of my examples above, if this is to be the basis of your hypothetical future breakthrough in minute retrospective human behaviour determination? Your arguments really are getting silly now M, I can't believe you are coming out with this tosh.

I lack the grounding in philosophy or science to articulate this properly, but there is a massive difference between the unknown, even the unknowable and the non-existent. In my (perhaps mad) reasoning, anything that is physical has a physical explanation, whether we can (now or ever) grasp it. Another way of saying that is anything that is a product of nature has a natural explanation. Otherwise you're into the supernatural (in the literal sense of beyond nature rather than spooks and spectres)

Then tell me this; if the past is physical; where is it? Show me where it is, hold it up for me to see. Think about it; it is NOT physical. There exists only the physical elements that can provide clues to what happened, the events themselves do not exist.

Maybe I'm bonkers. Maybe I'm just not indoctrinated. Or maybe I'm just not afraid?

On the contrary, you are quivering before the prospect of realising that those damned lefties are correct and that the elaborate ideologically-driven histories of the past can be as readily demolished as subscribed to. That really unsettles your cosy world of "certainties" I think.

I've said it before Col, most rationalists - as far as I can deduce - bottle it when it comes to following through on the implications of their views.

I mean come on - if what we are is but a product of our biological brain, why is understanding the working of that any different than understanding the working of our lungs, other than it's more complex?

surely the difference is quantitive rather than qualititive? How can you as an athiest countenance any other possibility? It's a terrifying idea I grant you, but what's that got to do with reason or scientific truth (unless that's not allowed either
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)?

I really think you should read what I have said above as well as Snoot's comments and have a good think again.

How do you think we should tackle it then?

By doing what you suggested; trying to engage young minds. It is what I do for a living. Do me a favour though and go and have a wee think again about the discussion. Sometimes I suspect that you are in this debate because you enjoy an argument and sometimes I think it's because you don't get it. For someone who professes to be non-ideological you are certainly opposed to certain points of view, though for the life of me I cannot see what your problem is with accepting that all history is theory. It is precisely that acceptance that has enabled history to breathe new life over the last half-century or so, and given rise to historical revisionism.

[egb_hibs]

You've misunderstood everything from my allusion to your jigsaw to my abstract departures over the human brain.

The point - in short - is this. I'm trying to close you down on a point about the existence of an objective reality, even if we can never perceive it. The point is important because it provides a motive for attempting to pursue an ever clearer picture, even though we'll never manage it.

The point about the brain is not so much whether we'll ever be able to measure it (though you'd be a fool to dismiss the possibility) and of course - as I explicitly stated - it will never be possible for those in the past. Rather, the point is, that a quantifiable, objective set of events right down the level of brain activity exists. Our inability to measure them doesn't mean that is not so.

I will add, that I appreciate this whole line of argument is somewhat convoluted (though IMHO quite valid), but I was pushed there an an attempt to get past a wholly constructed view of what humanity and it's story is. People act for a 'reason' which different than 'from reason' - in response to stimuli, and through concious and unconscious reaction to that, itself a product of biology and conditioning.

You're point about science now - think you've not got it their either.

Evolution is not a fact, but it's taught as the best picture we have of reality based on evidence we have. That is pretty much analagous to what I'm talking about with history actually. Whereas I take your position to be closer to the ID mob's pitch about giving equal creedence to every 'argument'.

The point about lefties and historical narratives is just plain funny if occasionally tiresome. Talk about certainties fella. This is something you've concocted for yourself over a series of threads - it never came out my mouth. In fact I offer for your consideration that it's you who's maybe trapped in the orthodoxy of your day. the only shame is it's maybe (i'm still unsure i understand you) the kind of naieve intellectual theory that works the opposite way to intended in the real world.

You also seem to cry 'hatstand' when the comforting certainties of our present social narrative are challenged.Your idea of the 'self' is a construct fella. Why you think the brain is magically inexplicable versus any other organic or machinistic mechanism is a mystery to me.

oh and if there's been greater spinners of historical narratives than the left; from the whigs, to marx, to hitler, then I don't know who they are.
in fact their narratives hold sway today by and large. mind you mate I'm not sure what your problem with this is - if you are not chasing an elusive grail of objectivity, surely your craft must ultimately be in the service of propping up one narrative or other?

But anyway, I don't want this to get into a bunfight. So I'm done there. I'll reacknowledge what I consider to be a failure of communication. I don;t think we'll ever get through this one in this medium. So I'll leave it till you come back over here for a pint.

In closing I'd like to summarise my position:

For someone who professes to be non-ideological you are certainly opposed to certain points of view, though for the life of me I cannot see what your problem is with accepting that all history is theory.

I have never disputed that. There are 4 points on which I have disagreed with you and Snoot, the rest of the charges against me have not come from myself:

1. While all history is theory, a distorted picture of a past reality, that doesn't invalidate attempts to get as close to that reality as possible.
2. Historical accounts that make this attempt have more merit than those that intentionally set out to mislead.
3. There is nothing wrong with presenting to pupils, with appropriate caveats, what is considered to be our best attempt at understanding a given situation (if any kind of substantial consensus exists). This does not preclude debate or different opinions etc.
4. A curriculum based wholly on a pupil teach thyself policy, at pre-tertiary levels of education, is as likely to lead to people believing david icke, as to liberating them.

1 and 2, I am convinced of. 3, I am, in time honoured bounce style, 90% certain of. 4 is more a strong suspicion.

All this other pesh about certainty and narrative accounts has not been anything I've advocated. I believe this is known in debating circles as 'a straw man'


Right, the only thing I'll continue with here, is how to tackle the history prob. will think about it and reply seperately.