82 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

Proclus, on 05 January 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Sorry, your claims tend now finally to become absolutely ridiculous and I don't know why you are doing this? I wish somebody else could explain me what's going on in your brain. My personal guess is that you permanently suspect me to be an Atlantis crackpot searching for an Atlantis 9600 BC in the Atlantic Ocean (which I am not), and thus by suspecting me permantently to be a crackpot you are caught in deep misunderstandings.

I think this e.g. can be seen by you imputing me again and again things I never said,
but which are very typical for a crackpot.

No, I suspect you of being willfully ignorant and hopelessly incompetent as a researcher. And you continue to validate my suspicions. Try sticking with whatever may have inspired the story and staying away from the rest. It trips you up every time.

cormac

[Proclus]

cormac mac airt, on 05 January 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

No, I suspect you of being willfully ignorant and hopelessly incompetent as a researcher. And you continue to validate my suspicions. Try sticking with whatever may have inspired the story and staying away from the rest. It trips you up every time.

I still have the true feeling that deep in your heart you would like to be a rational person who earnestly sticks to scientific principles, you only have a biased idea of rationality and science, so that you appear to be a fanatic what you are not, in truth. Be sure: I will never tease you or laugh about you if you ever change your mind! Remind me of this if necessary. And now let's stop.

[the L]

Proclus, on 05 January 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

The Puzzler, on 05 January 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

What's interesting is he wasn't just TOLD he was also SHOWN - he himself was quite amazed when he computed up the years but went along because he had the proof in front of him, the wooden idols made in the likeness of each king.

Exactly, The Puzzler, and the scene is considered to be realistic, such idols have been found in masses in Thebes. Only that the genealogy of the priest is a forgery to justify their position in the temple.

Can you developed that please. I found it realy interesting and  although I thought I knew something everytime I post here I learn that I dont know nothing.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Proclus, on 05 January 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

I still have the true feeling that deep in your heart you would like to be a rational person who earnestly sticks to scientific principles, you only have a biased idea of rationality and science, so that you appear to be a fanatic what you are not, in truth. Be sure: I will never tease you or laugh about you if you ever change your mind! Remind me of this if necessary. And now let's stop.

The truth about the question you posed at the start of your thread is that there is no real fixed benchmark or criteria for historical editing of a date or a place.
You have asked a very compelling question,basically you have kicked the pseudoscholars and mainstream parrot historians in the balls. This fact is evident in the response you have got from these people (this may also help you to mark the dimwits for further reference). They will throw their credntials and wave their degrees in your face,and will probably ridicule every semsible query you have (since they don't have digestible answers).

But leaving that aside,a lot in mainstream history is based on consensus and not on empirical evidence.For eg- if the prominent historians(so called) get together and decide that egyptians build the great pyramids as tombs then that becomes history that is taught to you and me in school,college and over a period of time mainstream parrotary gets it to a status of a being a unchallengable fact,and clasiifies all detractors as 'Fringes' etc.

I would recommend you to be more aggressive with your opinions and not to backdown or behave polite in face of some people who will criticize anything and everything (at the same time demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy and lack of capability of critical and independant thinking).

Cheers.

[Abramelin]

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 January 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

The truth about the question you posed at the start of your thread is that there is no real fixed benchmark or criteria for historical editing of a date or a place.
You have asked a very compelling question,basically you have kicked the pseudoscholars and mainstream parrot historians in the balls. This fact is evident in the response you have got from these people (this may also help you to mark the dimwits for further reference). They will throw their credntials and wave their degrees in your face,and will probably ridicule every semsible query you have (since they don't have digestible answers).

But leaving that aside,a lot in mainstream history is based on consensus and not on empirical evidence.For eg- if the prominent historians(so called) get together and decide that egyptians build the great pyramids as tombs then that becomes history that is taught to you and me in school,college and over a period of time mainstream parrotary gets it to a status of a being a unchallengable fact,and clasiifies all detractors as 'Fringes' etc.

I would recommend you to be more aggressive with your opinions and not to backdown or behave polite in face of some people who will criticize anything and everything (at the same time demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy and lack of capability of critical and independant thinking).

Cheers.

Maybe you want to reread this post of mine, and then 'judge' again:

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4607187

[Proclus]

Harsh86_Patel, on 07 January 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

The truth about the question you posed at the start of your thread is that there is no real fixed benchmark or criteria for historical editing of a date or a place.
You have asked a very compelling question,basically you have kicked the pseudoscholars and mainstream parrot historians in the balls. This fact is evident in the response you have got from these people (this may also help you to mark the dimwits for further reference). They will throw their credntials and wave their degrees in your face,and will probably ridicule every semsible query you have (since they don't have digestible answers).

But leaving that aside,a lot in mainstream history is based on consensus and not on empirical evidence.For eg- if the prominent historians(so called) get together and decide that egyptians build the great pyramids as tombs then that becomes history that is taught to you and me in school,college and over a period of time mainstream parrotary gets it to a status of a being a unchallengable fact,and clasiifies all detractors as 'Fringes' etc.

I would recommend you to be more aggressive with your opinions and not to backdown or behave polite in face of some people who will criticize anything and everything (at the same time demonstrating their intellectual bankruptcy and lack of capability of critical and independant thinking).

Cheers.

Thank you for your support!

It is true that in the end the ruling scientific opinion is created by "consensus" and bullying of dissenters. This could lead to despair in science and the output of academia. But the achievements of science have to be acknowleged!

I think there are limits to aggressiveness towards established science: Basically I agree with established science!. I only have dissent when -- and this is now the important: -- the ruling scientists do not follow their own standards! To accep a historical-critical interpretation with Herodotus and his king Menes on the one side, while on the oder side simply rejecting any such question on Plato's Atlantis (while at the same time silently thinking about these questions under the label "Platonic Myth"!) is not acceptable. Standards are ok but they have to be applied to all and everything.

_

[Harsh86_Patel]

Abramelin, on 07 January 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Maybe you want to reread this post of mine, and then 'judge' again:

http://www.unexplain...30#entry4607187

Abramelin wasn't nudging you in my comment. Good read though.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Proclus, on 25 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Thank you for your support!

It is true that in the end the ruling scientific opinion is created by "consensus" and bullying of dissenters. This could lead to despair in science and the output of academia. But the achievements of science have to be acknowleged!

I think there are limits to aggressiveness towards established science: Basically I agree with established science!. I only have dissent when -- and this is now the important: -- the ruling scientists do not follow their own standards! To accep a historical-critical interpretation with Herodotus and his king Menes on the one side, while on the oder side simply rejecting any such question on Plato's Atlantis (while at the same time silently thinking about these questions under the label "Platonic Myth"!) is not acceptable. Standards are ok but they have to be applied to all and everything.

_

I am a person who appreciates empirical science to the greatest extent but Conventional Mainstream History doesn't consider empirical/scientific evidence as the only criteria to acknowledge and herald a historical scenario as fact,like I said that in History very little is based on science and more is based on consensus. Like you rightly pointed out there is a huge bias on which mythological sources are to be declared as credible and which are not. Indian mythology also faces this same bias and many historians declare the whole mythology as a fairytale.

[hollistrum]

I find this topic interesting. I was recently talking with a coworker with about this very subject. (a possible resetting the time line of history.) But, I do think it would be more plausible to list ancient historical events in the order that they occurred (and were) through out history before labeling with dates.

I find the Atlantis topic very interesting as well. I like the Spartel Island ideal. Though, I think Santorina was the place in History.


Something to consider.

With translations of one text to another, we must take in to account the possible error and also, the admission and omission's of some of the text. Especially when there is a large gap of time between the text is written and when its translated.

Plus, we don't know what the understood "sizes" were of the lands when he compares them. We only know what they are as we know them today.



When concedering such great feats of the Ancient, we much consider nothing through today's understanding. - Me

[Proclus]

hollistrum, on 30 January 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

With translations of one text to another, we must take in to account the possible error and also, the admission and omission's of some of the text. Especially when there is a large gap of time between the text is written and when its translated.

Plus, we don't know what the understood "sizes" were of the lands when he compares them. We only know what they are as we know them today.

There is even more! Of the Herodotus text we only have two major manuscripts from ... .... the 10th and 14th century! Unimaginable! This means that we have to rely on manuscripts written more than 1000 years after the author! Imagine how many typos could have been inserted by re-writing and re-writing again and again ... just typos ... (have you ever looked at a historical-critical edition of the New Testament? There are different variants known from different manuscripts for every sentence! For each single sentence.)

[jaylemurph]

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 January 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

I am a person who appreciates empirical science to the greatest extent but Conventional Mainstream History doesn't consider empirical/scientific evidence as the only criteria to acknowledge and herald a historical scenario as fact,like I said that in History very little is based on science and more is based on consensus. Like you rightly pointed out there is a huge bias on which mythological sources are to be declared as credible and which are not. Indian mythology also faces this same bias and many historians declare the whole mythology as a fairytale.

History isn't a science or a rational subject. It's a study of humans and human actions. It does you no good to try to expect it to conform with science or for you to expect it to use the scientific method. I'd go so far as to say your disappointment in it expressed above is a fault with you rather than the field -- a bad workman always blames his tools.

In point of fact, the entire concept of history is not to provide a framework of undisputed, sequential facts. (That, by the way, is archaeology.) History is a study of the human reasons behind series of events -- the how and why of things, not the what and when (again, those last two are acheaology, not history). That's why it changes: humans change, and their understanding of things change. The simple fact is that the passage of time precludes the possibility of finding indisputable answers to historical questions -- we can't go back and ask Elizabeth I why she chose the words she did for her speech at Tilbury -- so no historical understanding is ever 100% proven or 100% undisputable. And the only way such the historical interpretation we have now will stay the exactly same is if human culture and society stays exactly the same. And to date, we have no record of such stasis and no reason to believe it will occur. (And lacking definitive evidence, consensus of the educated is the only way forward, but as I've pointed out, that has the deeply anti-democratic founding that people who know more, know more and that the opinion of people who know less is not as useful.)

You may wish to read up on the study of historiography, to understand exactly what history is, how it's created and what it's for before decrying it so readily.

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph, 31 January 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

jaylemurph, on 31 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

History isn't a science or a rational subject. It's a study of humans and human actions. It does you no good to try to expect it to conform with science or for you to expect it to use the scientific method. I'd go so far as to say your disappointment in it expressed above is a fault with you rather than the field -- a bad workman always blames his tools.

In point of fact, the entire concept of history is not to provide a framework of undisputed, sequential facts. (That, by the way, is archaeology.) History is a study of the human reasons behind series of events -- the how and why of things, not the what and when (again, those last two are acheaology, not history). That's why it changes: humans change, and their understanding of things change. The simple fact is that the passage of time precludes the possibility of finding indisputable answers to historical questions -- we can't go back and ask Elizabeth I why she chose the words she did for her speech at Tilbury -- so no historical understanding is ever 100% proven or 100% undisputable. And the only way such the historical interpretation we have now will stay the exactly same is if human culture and society stays exactly the same. And to date, we have no record of such stasis and no reason to believe it will occur. (And lacking definitive evidence, consensus of the educated is the only way forward, but as I've pointed out, that has the deeply anti-democratic founding that people who know more, know more and that the opinion of people who know less is not as useful.)

You may wish to read up on the study of historiography, to understand exactly what history is, how it's created and what it's for before decrying it so readily.

--Jaylemurph

The point you make in this post is well received, but i would also like to point out that though you openly admit and establish that there is nothing that is in-disputable in majority of conventional history,most professional historians do not acknowledge this fact enough.Not only is the content and dates and places in mainstream history disputable,but i would go one step ahead and say that even few of the established methodologies and tools and logics used to chart out a lot of conventional history are also not indisputable for eg- the selective treatment of mythological texts is a very good example pointed out by my friend here.

[the L]

jaylemurph, on 31 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

History isn't a science or a rational subject. It's a study of humans and human actions.

You are not serious?
History is SCIENCE.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 January 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

History very little is based on science and more is based on consensus.

No. Its based on science. But history dont have lab. In fact Etienne Gilson said something smart:
"History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought."


So history is the only laboratory where we can test ideas.
Imo its best lab ever.

History works as history writting works. We often need time distance.

[the L]

In 3000 AD we will see Hitler as we now see Alexander, Caesar...

Edited by the L, 03 February 2013 - 08:50 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

the L, on 03 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

In 3000 AD we will see Hitler as we now see Alexander, Caesar...

I doubt it. More likely he'll be seen alot like many see Vlad Tepes, the original Count Dracula. Cruel and barbaric in his punishment against others.

cormac