Knowing good history from bad history

[samr]

How can I know historical truth, without having to rely 100% on first-hand materials (reading for myself all the sources, rather than experts)? How can I tell experts from non-experts, and to what extent can I rely upon experts?

A specific qualm I have is that christian historians are more likely to produce very different concepts of what christian history is than non-christians. And I don't think I can just ignore it by the effort of saying "they are biased" (though I would love to). For example, Chestertone had a different conception of the middle ages than is usually said, and Schumacher also, (though I had not read a detailed account by Schumacher).

[Avila]

I think you do need to go to the sources.

Modern historians can be (or at least should be) more objective in their approach. Much of the new research paints a different picture of certain time periods or events such as the Middle Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Much of what we think we know about those periods has been shown to be myths -- the result of English-speaking (and English-writing) Protestants attempting to bash the Catholic church and Catholic countries they were warring with, such as Spain.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

How can I know historical truth, without having to rely 100% on first-hand materials (reading for myself all the sources, rather than experts)? How can I tell experts from non-experts, and to what extent can I rely upon experts?

Even with first hand materials you won't know, because much hasn't survived to the present day (and what has survived is often a manuscript copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.... with all the human scribal errors inherent to that process) and because the people themselves injected their own biases and preconceptions into what they wrote, more often than not. A Roman account of the Punic wars will necessarily be different from a Carthaginian one (and if I recall correctly, we don't have a Carthaginian account). It's nevertheless possible to partially (and admittedly not 100 percent reliably) reconstruct things by inference even from copies of copies or secondhand (but relatively close to the original timeframe) sources that are loaded with bias. (You get some interesting results when you do this with the Bible!)

[Amaroq]

This is something I've had trouble with before too. Not just with history, but with general facts about other things, such as the history of our economy.

I've seen a Christian blog that depicts the dark ages as a period of happiness and enlightenment, and I've seen people attribute the Great Depression to factors of the free market.

Without knowing the facts first-hand, all I can say is that if it contradicts what you already know to be true, it probably isn't true. For example, I know that freedom and respect for individual rights is good for humans and consequently humanity. The idea that the free market caused the great depression contradicts that, so all I can do is just say "I don't know the facts about that issue, but I reject that claim because it contradicts what I do know." And if the dark ages was dominated by religion, then I can only assume that the religious take on it being a period of sunshine and roses is a lie. Because I know that when religion rules, everything goes to hell.

Reality is non-contradictory. IE, logically consistent. So if you have already proved to yourself something that contradicts a historical claim, then chances are the historical claim somehow contradicts reality.

[Jorge]

A good guide for me has been to remember that our modern, or Post Modern, "Education" system is the product of the Mysticist/Altruist axis and has a vested interest in destroying facts and reality in the name of an evil mythology.

Always remember most professors these days have a vested interest in blaming Capitalism for the Great Depression, "Islamophobia" for the Crusades and so forth.

[Avila]

"I've seen a Christian blog that depicts the dark ages as a period of happiness and enlightenment, and I've seen people attribute the Great Depression to factors of the free market."

But all of this requires some definition and evidence: if the "Dark Ages" refers to the limited time period that most modern historians agree to (the period that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire until the advent of the Middle Ages), then of course they were a dark period.The societal structures and order that the Roman Empire had imposed were gone, and outside forces looted and pillaged at will, with no central (physical) defense. However, if this "Dark Ages" is applied to the Medieval period, then yes, modern research has shown that they were not at "dark" at all in many respects, especially in the area of scientific inquiry. The major universities of Europe were founded at this time, and the foundations of modern science were being laid. (This despite the influence of the Black Death, which killed a third of Europe.) The extension of the term "Dark Ages" to include the Medieval period had far more to do with a Protestant desire to re-write history than in any factual basis. I think a good example of this is the work of Eamon Duffy: His research shows a "top down" method of enforcement of Protestant ideas upon a reluctant population. What's significant about this is that he shattered the prevailing myths of the English Protestant establishment, and despite the controversial (and anti-establishment) conclusions he draws, there has been no effective rebuttal to his assertions. There was no counter-argument, as he simply provided facts.

I have to wonder at the premise here, which appears to be that theists MUST have an agenda which colors their depiction of history. This is so incredibly narrow....on this basis (personal beliefs affecting one's objectivity), then why would atheists be any different?

[Jorge]

1) I agree about the High Middle Ages being a Golden Age of Europe equal to, and in some areas surpassing, Rome. People who dismiss it as the "Dark Ages" are just plain ignorant.

However, I think the ignorance is understandable. People in these parts remember Athens and Rome because they were so much like us, the society of the High Middle Ages is basically alien and what made it unique has basically vanished. Don't get me wrong, some of its institutions like the University survive and it made the rest of Europe's rise to dominance possible but what aspects of its morality and identity survive?

People identify with Rome because at its core it was about Republicanism, Citizenship and other ideas shared by the democratic world today. As widespread and profound as the High Middle Ages' Christian Identity was, where is it today? Fractured by denomination, race, class, gender, nationality etc. As successful as the Guild system was, where is it and its anti-Capitalist attitudes today? Where is the feudal system? Etc etc etc.

The Hundred Years War, Papal Schism, growth of secular powers, cut throat mercantilism, fricking Plague and Europe's damn-near-suicidal (literally) Reformation wiped that culture out (more or less, history is not simple but you get what I mean I hope), no matter the dizzying heights of its accomplishments.

We are closer today to 1 AD than 1200 AD.

Again, I admit I am generalizing quite a bit here but I hope you get the gist of what I mean.

2) The OP was about a specific source. Let's face it, despite Christianity's contributions to historic writing, modern American Evangelicalism is about self serving, comfortably counter factual, myth making. I think the OP was talking about Christian history in a Regent University, not Fordham University, sort of way.

I don't think anyone can claim a Christian or an Atheist (or whatever) is totally bound by their personal biases but the closer you get to American Xian Fundies, the closer you get to history books that begin "In Accordance with Prophecy...."

[softwareNerd]

Can't blame Catholics for wanting to point out that they were a bit better than the barbarians. Still, the poor manager should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy.

[Avila]

"Can't blame Catholics for wanting to point out that they were a bit better than the barbarians. Still, the poor manager should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy."

Your attitude simply reflects the bias of the English Reformation and its re-writing of history. You are believing a myth. In reality, the Catholic Church has been a supporter of the sciences for thousands of years. Of course, everyone always trots out Galileo, and no doubt many real errors were made -- scientific, theological, and moral -- but they hardly negate the fact that the Church has supported the sciences. Just take one discipline, astronomy: the Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. Many notable scientists in other disciplines received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Prior to Galilieo, Copernicus (a Polish priest) first advanced the doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the center of our system. His great work, De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium, was published at the solicitation of Cardinal Schömberg and the Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated to Pope Paul III, with his permission. No objections or difficulties were raised against Copernicus by any official of the Catholic church. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm.

On the contrary, Copernicus was rewarded with honors by the Pope, and became an influential individual within the Catholic church. In sum, the heliocentric solar system was warmly received by the established church of the day.

It's interesting to note that Copernicus entrusted his book to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

Christopher Hitchens writes that "The attitude of religion to medicine, like the attitude of religion to science, is always problematic and very often necessarily hostile." He adds that medical research only began to flourish once "the priests had been elbowed aside." But that's simply another myth -- oddly, in the very next line he quotes Louis Pasteur as an example of this enlightened research, without acknowledging that Pasteur was a pious Catholic.

It's also a myth that the Church forbade dissection.

[samr]

Avila, I agree.

You also forgot to add that

Isaac Newton was, beyond question, one of the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians who ever lived.

He invented calculus and the reflecting telescope; he discovered the gravity equation, the gravity constant, and the laws of motion. He correctly analyzed the refraction of light.

But most of his time and effort were directed to spiritual questions. He excelled in his ability to read Hebrew and Greek, and wrote extensive commentaries on the Tanakh and the New Testament. His commentaries are so detailed that he began to calculate astronomical observations using the Hebrew calendar, in which months have names like "Nisan", rather than the standard English calendar. In fact, he wrote and published more books about religion than he wrote about mathematics and science put together.

I put this as a quote, since it is taken from

http://humanities-notes.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

the same source from which you took (every single word) your paragraph on Copernicus.

You also forgot to mention that

Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root.

Which is taken from

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0255.htm

Where you took your paragraph on Hitchens from.

[Avila]

I'm glad we agree.

From another source: "To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth."

I met Jaki a number of times -- a very brilliant pries and physicist, though rather imperious.

"Which is taken from

http://www.catholice...tics/ap0255.htm

Where you took your paragraph on Hitchens from."

No, that's not the source where I got the information.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Avila

[softwareNerd]

Can't blame Catholics for wanting to point out that they were a bit better than the barbarians. Still, the poor manager should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy.

Your attitude simply reflects the bias of the English Reformation and its re-writing of history. You are believing a myth. In reality, the Catholic Church has been a supporter of the sciences for thousands of years.

And the soviets put the first man in space.

[Quoted from elsewhere:]"Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root."

Ha ha! Humus is a good way to describe Christianity, but it ridiculous to use the term "necessary" to describe such a cause. Edited September 21, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Avila]

"And the soviets put the first man in space."

Your point being....?

[softwareNerd]

Your point being....?

You should try to understand why history is what it is. Approach it by dis-aggregating the various sub-organizations, the various people, and the various motivations and ask yourself what caused what. If you approach it by asking yourself "where can I find evidence of rationality among the humus of Christianity?" you'll end up with your current christian-apologist spiel, pretending to have a modern contrary view that demolishes straw-men.

[Avila]

Software Nerd, you should try and understand that history involves facts. If you start out with the presumption that all Christians are irrational, and that the Catholic Church has held back progress, then you have already kissed objectivity goodbye. It would be more rational and more intellectually honest to actually KNOW something about those facts before delivering yourself of your opinions. Be informed, in other words.

I responded to your likening the Catholic Church to a "poor manager" who "should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy" with historical facts which contradict your bias. You responded with knee-jerk emotion -- actually, you seem to be consistently emotional rather than rational on this subject.

It is no doubt bothersome to you that people holding beliefs that you despise actually have contributed significantly to the advancement of science. Apparently that disturbs your preconceptions so much that you are unable to see truth wherever it might be found.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Avila

[softwareNerd]

... the presumption that all Christians are irrational,...

Here again, you show that you are unable to dis-aggregate and understand causes.

It is no doubt bothersome to you that people holding beliefs that you despise actually have contributed significantly to the advancement of science.

No, it is not bothersome to me at all. It is patently obvious that people who are religious can make great discoveries. It is patently obvious that one religious scientist could trounces the scientific pants off an atheist scientist. Again, as long as you keep aggregating, rather than trying to understand causation, you will keep making the same epistemological error made by all majority-population racists. Edited September 22, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Trebor]

In principle, it's either science or religion. They are mutually exclusive. That there have been periods dominated by religion which permitted some science is not an argument supporting a religious basis for science.

What is science? The study of the natural order of existence, of causality.

It's said that Thales was the father of philosophy. Why? Because instead of appealing to the supernatural as the cause for events, he postulated natural causes. From my old notes from Dr. Peikoff's History of Philosophy: His importance is in his naturalistic approach (versus a supernatural approach): Thales held that there are laws governing the world and that those laws are comprehensible. He dispensed with supernatural regulation for causality. Thus began philosophy and science.

There's a fork in the road, in principle, between religion and science. If there is a supernatural being that governs existence, then, if man wants some effect (better weather, food, anything), he appeals to the cause of effects, that supernatural being. Such a man prays and even offers sacrifices (even human sacrifices, literally) in the hopes of persuading the supernatural being to cause the desired effects.

If there is a supernatural being, the order in existence is dependent upon his will, and that order is not necessary, but is contingent upon his will. A tree may not have yet turned into a man, but with god's will, it can and it will. What then, on such a view of causality, is there for a scientist to study? Order? That's due to god's will. That the tree has not turned into a man means nothing but that god has so ordained it.

Science, the other fork in the road, begins with the acceptance of natural causality and the rejection, if only implicitly, of supernatural causation. The order in existence is there, it's regular, it's caused by identity. Things act in accord with their nature; they cannot do otherwise. Science, as a investigation into causality, in principle depends upon this, the correct, view - as opposed to the arbitrary construct of a supernatural being.

Edit: Clarity

Edited September 22, 2011 by Trebor

[Avila]

"In principle, it's either science or religion. They are mutually exclusive."

That's too blanket a statement. Some religions or some religious sects might not conducive to science (I'd need to research that, but offhand I would guess that some fundamentalist Christians, some Islamists, and possibly Buddhism might not view science very highly), but certainly traditional Christianity (Catholics and the Orthodox) view religion and science as compatible. In order to support your assertion, you should provide some evidence.

[Trebor]

"In principle, it's either science or religion. They are mutually exclusive."

That's too blanket a statement. Some religions or some religious sects might not conducive to science (I'd need to research that, but offhand I would guess that some fundamentalist Christians, some Islamists, and possibly Buddhism might not view science very highly), but certainly traditional Christianity (Catholics and the Orthodox) view religion and science as compatible. In order to support your assertion, you should provide some evidence.

"That's too blanket a statement"?

It is a blanket statement, yes. But no, I do not need to provide some (more) evidence to support my assertion. Instead, you need to think, to think in terms of principles. The evidence you need is readily available to you.

I am not saying that a particular person cannot be both religious and a scientist. People can hold contradictory views, compartmentalizing the contrary views as best they can, but they cannot avoid the consequences of such contradictory views.

That a person can be both religious and a scientist does not imply that religion and science are compatible. They are not in principle.

[Avila]

That a person can be both religious and a scientist does not imply that religion and science are compatible. They are not in principle.

If one's "principles" require one to ignore reality and historical fact, then one ought to examine those principles and see if maybe they aren't really just biases.

It's like someone holding as a principle the notion that man is a land-based creature, and therefore cannot venture into the water. Meanwhile, people are swimming, boats are sailing......

But no, I do not need to provide some (more) evidence to support my assertion

Well, that's convenient! Much easier to hide behind some lofty, reality-denying "principles".

[brianleepainter]

Avila,

The mathematician Kepler, having discovered great things through method, held contradictions that did affect his pursuits. Ideas do have consequences, and lead to contradictions:

"Tragically, Kepler was torn by conflicting views regarding the nature of knowledge in general and of mathematics in particular. He opened the door to modern science, but he stepped through only halfway. He was held back by his partial allegiance to a Christianized version of Platonism. When in the grip of this view, he searched for causes in the mind of God rather than in the nature of physical entities, sanctioned wild speculations based on "intuition," and tolerated the resulting breaches between theory and observation. Thus Kepler stood with one foot forward in the Age of Reason and one foot back in the middle ages."

"A particularly striking result of Kepler's contradictory philosophic premises can be seen in his views on the cause of ocean tides. Qua scientist, he started from observational evidence and searched for a physical cause...However, when he considered the same problem from the perspective of his Platonic/Christian mysticism, he searched for a spiritual cause....The results of the experiment could not have been more decisive." - David Harriman, "The Logical Leap"

Edited September 22, 2011 by brianleepainter

[Trebor]

If one's "principles" require one to ignore reality and historical fact, then one ought to examine those principles and see if maybe they aren't really just biases.

It's like someone holding as a principle the notion that man is a land-based creature, and therefore cannot venture into the water. Meanwhile, people are swimming, boats are sailing......

I agree.

Well, that's convenient! Much easier to hide behind some lofty, reality-denying "principles".

Yes, it is convenient, but it is not a matter of hiding behind 'some lofty, reality-denying "principles,"' for myself at least.

[Avila]

The mathematician Kepler, having discovered great things through method, held contradictions that did affect his pursuits. Ideas do have consequences, and lead to contradictions:

The author you quoted is an Objectivist, and therefore is an adherent to the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since I don't regard this view as reality-based, I would suspect that bias plays a large role in his assessment of Kepler.

[Amaroq]

This is Objectivism Online. Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality. You display a blatant contradiction of and misunderstanding and seemingly explicit disagreement with Objectivism, Avila.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies. Religious epistemology takes faith as the proper source of knowledge. Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge. The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality.

What are you doing here? What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science? Probably the same interest that religious people have in convincing others that religion and science are compatible. Either that or you're simply unaware of the religions' ulterior motive whenever they claim this compatibility. They're trying to give their irrationality an equal validity to science, and you are in effect doing the same thing.

The reason sNerd is saying what he is saying is because there is a causal connection between rationality and scientific progress that he is isolating. A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)

Edited September 22, 2011 by Amaroq

[Avila]

"This is Objectivism Online."

Yup, I knew that. I like aspects of Objectivism, though I am not an Objectivist. If you look at my profile, you will see that I've read a fair amount of Rand (though not all). I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads.

"Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality."

Yes, I know you believe that. Whether that's true or not is another question. Certainly some aspects of the philosophy are.

"Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies."

Are you familiar with Aquinas at all? His epistemology is similar -- it is through the senses that we become acquainted with material things, and sense perception is central to human cognition. Perhaps you really aren't acquainted with any religious epistemology, but have simply made some assumptions.

" Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge."

As does Thomism.

"The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality."

That's more an opinion or bias than anything else, though I acknowledge that it is fundamental to Objectivism.

"What are you doing here?"

Just what I said above: I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads. I happen to agree with Rand on a number of subjects (such as the arts), and I think she was generally right in what is wrong, economically speaking. But no, I'm not an Objectivist, though I was for some time in my late teens.

"What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science?"

Umm, why don't you look at the subject of this thread? The question was, how does one trust history, or find good sources? I answered because we have sort of inherited many beliefs about history (such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, etc.) that were, in fact, written with an English Reformation bias. Modern historians have debunked some of the myths that we have inherited as historical knowledge. That was the context of my remarks, with tangents necessitated by some comments of others.

" A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)"

No, what you are saying is based on your belief (bias) that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive. I don't agree, but that's the subject for another post.

One of the aspects of Aquinas that I admire was his ability to state an opposing view with clarity and completeness -- he did not resort to attacking straw-men. I find that the making of straw-men and the caricaturing of an opposing view is indicative of a weakness of one's own position. I certainly see a lot of that here.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Avila