Re: Handmaiden to History

Digger wrote:
"Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fmqacs$2u1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
4) How do the different realities, emerging from different historically working disciplines, interrelate to each other and to the period in question?

I would suggest that generally we "merge" the differing realities, applying prior knowledge and assessing various probabilities in order to then assemble a new "reality". It would seem to me that we can never truly "know" very much at all.

If you want to get all existential on us then you can likely come to any position you wish. That was what held back science for so long, the principle came before the facts. One collects physical evidence, things, objects and their contexts. One then can come up with a theory to explain these objects. You do not have to "know" anything to develop a theory. There is only the best theory there is no such thing as a correct theory. Knowledge consists only of knowing the evidence and the theories regarding the evidence. There is nothing esoteric about it. You know exactly what you know. Much progress comes from realizing one is making assumptions not supported by the evidence.

All we can hope to do is form hypotheses based on what we think we know and hope they stand up to testing. I think problems arise when neither discipline (history and arcaheology) is prepared to listen to the other (a situation which seems to arise when there are reputations or egos to protect).

I guess this also takes us into the realms of defining the difference between "knowledge" and "belief".

True but it is the concrete type of knowledge as exists in science.

Take for example the "skeptical" believer. They cannot imagine how the Jews could have come to exist if there were not some truth in the OT. Some of these fake skeptics keep arguing for a kernel of truth. But that is a false assumption.

Islam, Mormonism and Scientology are just three that suddenly appeared in history accompanied by a book, the Koran, Book of Mormon and Dianetics respectively. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose the Jews did not suddenly come into existence with their book also. Only believers search for a kernel of truth in any of the four sources. We know religions can suddenly come into existence.

One cannot know something that is not in evidence nor can one know something that is contrary to the known evidence.

--
Hodie decimo quarto Kalendas Februarias MMVIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
    ... he cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when that truth ... not have any scientific evidence to justify its existence. ... seem to understand is the basis of their theism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
    ... he cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when that truth ... not have any scientific evidence to justify its existence. ... "I don't believe you" to the claims of theists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    ... | "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether" ... | It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth,Movement
    ... The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth ... The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave ... The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed not as conspiracy theories ...
    (soc.culture.europe)
  • Monumental Hoax
    ... to a greatly disturbing scientific truth and a monumental ... new evidence -- is summed up so very well by author Ian Taylor ... longtime professor of anthropology at Harvard ... Here are just a few of the thousands upon thousands of specimens ...
    (sci.anthropology)