MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Truth is Always Simple (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

John Welford wrote:
And I still haven't a clue what you are trying to say, despite me asking you this question several times. Just what are you on about?

I am inclined to believe him, difficult though it is. I shall leave it there. The chief lesson, I suppose, is that if you are taught something authoritatively you assume there must be evidence for it, and that the evidence is self-evident. Or that it is self-evident that there is evidence... something along those lines, I can't quite work it out myself.

A pro would have just said "Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks" -- which is what I was expecting, primed and ready. My opponent's methodology is, if anything, more effective.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There the matter rested until John Welford posted up an entire article about the exchange which I will put up here in its entirety [my paragraphing] because it raises some important points and which I will comment on in due course.

---------------------------

So Why Should History Be Invalid Without “Contemporary Evidence”?
This claim makes little sense to me

I recently had an interesting “to and fro” with another Medium member who took exception to an article I had written on the subject of Clovis, the first King of France, who died in the year 511. The problem was that my correspondent demanded that I produce “contemporary evidence” to support what I had written — by which he presumably meant documents written in the 6th century! He went on to admit that this was impossible, because there weren’t any such documents, but he then refused to accept my claim that I had used reliable historical sources, including a highly reputable encyclopedia that covered the period. His point seemed to be — although he never made this crystal clear — that it is invalid to write any sort of history unless one can produce evidence that originated at the time of the events in question.

That is a claim that I wish to refute

Everyone who has ever read history at any level will be aware that the facts on the page in front of them rely on the quality of research done by the historian who wrote the book or journal. That research will have been done by referring back to previous works by earlier historians, and — naturally enough — with contemporary documentation when that is available. That is not to say that other sorts of evidence do not also come onto the scene — most notably that produced by archaeology if the events in question are that far back.

The historians in question will produce their own interpretations of what actually happened, using logic, psychology and other analytical tools to reach what they believe to be reliable conclusions based on the evidence to hand, but always fully aware that other interpretations might well be possible. When new evidence comes to light, historians might be forced to change those interpretations. There is nothing remarkable about this process, which happens all the time. In other words, a great deal of history is written with only scant regard to “contemporary evidence”, and there is no reason to doubt its value because of that.

Going further

However, my refutation of the original statement goes further than that, namely to state that — in many cases — contemporary evidence is precisely what is NOT needed. The point here is that one has always to take into account the fact that documents written at the time of particular events very often had a specific purpose in mind that was far removed from any desire to provide later generations with firm facts. For example, if the document was describing the actions of a specific individual, was it doing so from the perspective of a supporter or of an enemy? This is like the behaviour of lawyers in a courtroom, who would be perfectly capable of producing either a stout defence or a blistering condemnation, based entirely on who was paying them to do so.

It must also be remembered that contemporary sources may only provide a limited perspective on events, and may not have access to all the relevant information. Obviously, it would be preferable to have more than one such source so that a balanced view could be taken, but this is by no means always possible. The documents may be incomplete or lack important details, making them unreliable as sources of information. Clearly, one thing that a contemporary document can never provide is hindsight and understanding of the significance of certain events in the context of history. That can only come from later documents that look back at events, not those produced at the time.

That is why historians have to use use a variety of sources, including contemporary evidence, but also sources from later periods and with different perspectives, in order to build a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past. And that is why I cannot accept that history — especially that presented on a site such as Medium — can only be valid if it uses contemporary evidence and nothing else, a claim that I have to regard as being nonsensical.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

He's clearly rattled
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the contrary, he's completely not. That's the problem.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The irony of it all is that I am occupying the orthodox position. Every academic historian is trained not to say anything unless there is a contemporary written account (or some equivalent) supporting what he is saying. John seems not to know this.

It is precisely this that I am railing against in RevHist. Which I am busy transmogrifying into a Kindle form, hence my laggardness. I've only got two brains. [© David Willetts]
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

John Welsfor wrote:
The problem was that my correspondent demanded that I produce “contemporary evidence” to support what I had written — by which he presumably meant documents written in the 6th century!

This is pretty weird since it isn't me but historians who demand that contemporary evidence be produced when writing history, but notice that exclamation mark. The geezer -- an ex-academic librarian -- clearly thinks that documentation from the sixth century is a bizarre concept. How right he is.

He went on to admit that this was impossible, because there weren’t any such documents, but he then refused to accept my claim that I had used reliable historical sources, including a highly reputable encyclopedia that covered the period.

Actually I was assuming he would bring out Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks but, though he hasn't acknowledged it, he has already conceded that there are no reliable historical sources. i.e. documents from the sixth century. Being in an encyclopedia is neither here nor there. Unless the encyclopedia was written in the sixth century. But first a truism

Everyone who has ever read history at any level will be aware that the facts on the page in front of them rely on the quality of research done by the historian who wrote the book or journal.

Then he blurts out the truth

That research will have been done by referring back to previous works by earlier historians, and — naturally enough — with contemporary documentation when that is available.

Which there aren't in the case of Clovis. Then he marks rime

That is not to say that other sorts of evidence do not also come onto the scene — most notably that produced by archaeology if the events in question are that far back.

And finally tells why it is that historians adopted the 'contemporary documentation' rule in the first place

The historians in question will produce their own interpretations of what actually happened, using logic, psychology and other analytical tools to reach what they believe to be reliable conclusions based on the evidence to hand

That's right, they write any old bollocks (always self-serving bollocks) when there is no contemporary documentation to keep them on the straight and narrow. And John has already accepted that is the case with Clovis! He'll make a fine revisionist one day.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Among other things, John Welford wrote:
in many cases — contemporary evidence is precisely what is NOT needed .... documents written at the time of particular events very often had a specific purpose in mind that was far removed from any desire to provide later generations with firm facts .... contemporary sources may only provide a limited perspective on events, and may not have access to all the relevant information ... the documents may be incomplete or lack important details, making them unreliable as sources of information.

This is all obvious enough and applies very much to modern history, but when it comes to Clovis -- or pretty much anything else from the European Dark Age -- it's not the quality of the sources that is in question, it is the existence of the sources that is in question. Hence

Clearly, one thing that a contemporary document can never provide is hindsight and understanding of the significance of certain events in the context of history. That can only come from later documents that look back at events, not those produced at the time.

is not very helpful because they would have needed contemporary sources to provide the hindsight, so if there weren't any...

That is why historians have to use use a variety of sources, including contemporary evidence, but also sources from later periods and with different perspectives, in order to build a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past. And that is why I cannot accept that history — especially that presented on a site such as Medium — can only be valid if it uses contemporary evidence and nothing else, a claim that I have to regard as being nonsensical.

I only asked for a contemporary source. In order to establish the existence of Clovis. After that we can get down to discussing the nuances of his reign.

But on a general note, I don't think it would occur to John (or pretty much anyone with a smattering of historical knowledge) to contemplate a world without Clovis. Never mind without Franks of any kind. Curiously they could contemplate a world without Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or Confucius or all such people apparently supported by reams of 'written testimony', because these are all figures-of-faith. Just don't touch figures-of-history!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

These exchanges are quite enlightening (for me, AE-wise, not anywise for John) so I’ll put the current one here with the odd comment. It concerns this very famous landmark. Or as I prefer to put it, sea-mark.

Chesil Beach, Dorset
This is a spectacular example of a tombolo, connecting an island to the mainland
https://medium.com/@johnwelford15/chesil-beach-dorset-e94f6b94526c

I’d never heard of a tombolo – must look it up – but generally there is nothing like Chesil Beach anywhere else in the world. Though lots of things sufficiently like it for it to be totally (and I mean, totally) regarded as natural by everyone on a self-evident basis.

The account itself was a straightforward scissors and paste job so I contented myself with this, to see what I could smoke out -- and en passant get a few hundred medium.com followers the chance to luxuriate in my genius:

I don't suppose you'll want to hear that Chesil Beach is artificial, John, but here's someone who thinks it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_S6zkh_PY

which is the lecture I gave at Glastonbury. God, how I wish it had been delivered anywhere else.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

John Welford wrote:
Mick, I have looked at this part of your presentation - nice to see what you look like, by the way - and find your ideas to be utterly bizarre. This is a part of the world I know pretty well. I have been sailing in Weymouth Bay (caught in a sudden squall while monitoring a windsurfing race) and have been all over Portland. My family once lived there, as did my sister's in-laws at one time.

I had an uncle who was Head of Geography at Weymouth Grammar School and regularly took school parties to Portland and Chesil Beach to study its formation and behaviour. At one time he carried out an experiment in which stones were painted (waterproof paint!) and placed at the wrong end on the beach for their size. These were then monitored as they moved along the beach due to the process mentioned in my article. I really wonder what reaction he would have had to your theory!

I always find it extraordinary when people such as yourself seek outlandish explanations for phenomena that that are easily explicable due to purely natural and observable processes. Of course there are coincidences in the natural world. But that is just that. So what if an island near the coast of France is due south of a hillfort in Dorset? You have to do a lot more than point out the similarities before you can reach the sort of conclusions that you seem to want to do.

I noted I didn't warrant the full fifty-five minute monte, so I gave a routine model answer

Mick Harper wrote:
Since you only raise one technical point, I am bound to point out that 'due south' is not just any direction, and the island (Jethou) being a mirror image of the hillfort (Maiden Castle) is not just 'a similarity'. But I agree that this meridian passing through the join between Chesil Beach and the Isle of Portland is bizarre. Or utterly bizarre to use your preferred term. Though still a fact.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I will break up the exchanges for comprehensibility. He started off with this slightly curious remark

In what way is Jethou a mirror image of Maiden Castle? OK - it is the same size, but that is just about as far as it goes.


Not only the same size, John, it is the same shape and is (or was) causewayed (to Herm).

This is completely typical. He accepts there are these two virtually identical land forms, with which he is completely familiar, they are joined umbilically by a meridian and he is... utterly uncurious. Even, one might say, angry!

And what is the implication of that? Are you really suggesting that Iron Age people set off in boats due south until they bumped into some islands and decided to "build" another one? Why would they possibly have wanted to do that? For what purpose? And was this even remotely possibly?

I thought I had better lighten proceedings with some misdirection

You can pop along to Durdle Dor and decide whether that is natural or not.

It was a red rag to a raging librarian (as I knew it would be)

Durdle Dor? Of course it's natural, as are all the other well-known erosion features of the Dorset Coast, which formed a vital part of my A-level Geography studies at Poole Grammar School. I really do not understand why anyone would seek alternative explanations for phenomena that are perfectly explainable as things stand!

That last sentence sums up the 'straight world'. I put in a word for the crazies

I can only suggest you watch the rest of the lecture for enlightenment.

He signed off

If you have ideas for why these Iron Age people decided to venture far from home to create features that would have taken centuries of work, I would be interested to read them. I shall certainly view the rest of your presentation, just to see what bizarre notions you will come up with next!

and I signed off

They are set out in a book called The Megalithic Empire. To create a Bronze Age, John, people had to venture hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from home to get tin and copper. And know how to get there and how to get back. Or did you think there were hardware shops in the Neolithic?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A new wrinkle today. I will quote John's entire piece because it is (a) short and (b) enlightening

Beddgelert, North Wales A village in Snowdonia that is named after the grave of a heroic dog killed in error. [pic] This is Gelert’s Grave in the village of Beddgelert in Snowdonia, North Wales — the name is Welsh for “grave of Gelert”.

Gelert was a hound that belonged to Llewelyn, Prince of Wales in the 13th century. The story goes that Llewelyn was away from home when a wolf came to his house and attacked his baby son, but Gelert fought the wolf and saw it off, despite being injured. When Llewelyn came home he could not see the child, but he did see Gelert, covered in blood. He drew the conclusion that Gelert had killed his son and immediately killed the dog. However, as soon as he had done so he heard the baby crying and discovered where Gelert had hidden him in safety from the wolf. Llewelyn never forgave himself for his rash action, and he made sure that Gelert had a fitting memorial.

Now while this may seem an agreeable mix of fact and fancy, John doesn't make it very clear which is which. He appears to be saying as 'fact' that the village is named because it is the burial site of Prince Llewellyn's dog. And while Prince Llewellyn is a real historical figure the rest is 'as the story goes'. So I waded in with a puff for the book

My latest book begs to differ, John:

Place-name specialists use a completely different methodology, making it up as they go along. "The village is probably named after an early Christian missionary and leader called Celert or Cilert." Or, failing that, what about a dog?
"The folk tale of the faithful hound Gelert is often associated with the village. A raised mound in the village is called Gelert’s Grave and is a significant tourist attraction. But the grave was built by the late 18th-century landlord of the Goat Hotel, David Pritchard, who created it in order to encourage tourism. Similar legends can be found in other parts of Europe and Asia."

John changes his ground, while missing the point (or employing careful ignoral)

I am only quoting the legend and not claiming that it is true! As you say, "monuments" of this kind are often found. My own village of Barlestone sports a lump of rock called the "Barle Stone" which some locals say was used to grind barley! This is complete nonsense, of course - you only have to check Domesday Book to find the true origin of the name, as well as to appreciate that the place-name element "stone" derives from "tun" - there are many such around here, as well as "by" endings because we are right on the edge of the Danegeld.

Also not far away is what was always supposed to be the site of the Battle of Bosworth, complete with "King Richard's Well", where Richard was supposed to taken a drink before realising that he needed a horse rather quickly. However, it has now been shown the battle site was at least a mile away from there
!

Interesting. I am pondering whether it is worth taking him to task.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

John Welford on medium.com, in part, wrote:
According to Shakespeare, Macbeth seized the throne of Scotland after murdering King Duncan. This is true in part, although Duncan’s death was in battle rather than as a result of treachery. Duncan had led a campaign against Moray and lost his life at the Battle of Pitgaveny in August 1040. Macbeth’s reign was somewhat longer than is implied by Shakespeare’s play ... things were sufficiently settled to allow him to make a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050 — he was the only reigning King of Scotland ever to do this.

There is no indication in the historical record that Macbeth’s behaviour as king justifies the impression given in Shakespeare’s play. In Shakespeare’s defence, he used sources that were not entirely trustworthy and which relied on material dating from the early 14th century. Even modern historians, with better access to contemporary sources, cannot be certain that they have all the facts about Macbeth correct. The above summary is probably about as good as it gets in terms of accuracy!

Mick Harper wrote:
As a historiographer, I was fascinated to hear that modern historians have better access to contemporary sources for eleventh century Scotland than Shakespeare did. Can you say what the sources are and why Wills didn't know about them?

John: I'm not surprised at all. Modern historians have access to documents that were long hidden away in university and monastic libraries (etc). Shakespeare did not pretend to be a historian, merely an absorber of folk stories that could be turned into great dramas and bring in the crowds.

Mick: But, as usual, you haven't been able to name these documents. Just... documents (with a wave in the air). You know... the ones hidden away in... er... university and monastic libraries. When are you going to wise up, John?

John: For the simple reason, Mick, that you seem to have some absurd belief that it is impossible to write about anything historical unless you have direct access to original documentation! It is surely unreasonable to expect writers on Medium to get their facts from anything other than secondary (etc) sources - any more than one would have expected William Shakespeare to do so. I have bought three of your books, and have noted their total lack of any corroborating evidence or reference to supporting documentation. So is the pot not calling the kettle black?

Mick: I only raised the issue because there aren't any! As for my own books, I think you are confusing citations for corroborating evidence. By definition, you cannot have citations if you are advancing novel ideas.

John: In other words, all you are doing is writing pure speculation for which you can find absolutely nobody who agrees with you - based on actual evidence! As for the facts about Macbeth and Scottish history in the 11th century, I would be amazed to discover that there is absolutely no written evidence - if I had access to appropriate sources, I am sure that these would be referred to.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Mysterious Underwater Atlantis Pyramids in Japan
All you need to know about the the mysterious underwater pyramids in Japan
.


You'll all know about these (I can't put the picture up for some reason) but why am I posting this up here? [full story: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/the-mysterious-underwater-atlantis-pyramids-in-japan-de82387aec51] Well, these things are utterly inexplicable so, basically, nobody takes any notice of them. Academics used to operate careful ignoral by claiming they were natural but this piece seems to suggest they've given up on that -- the theory isn't even mentioned. Since either history is wrong or geography is, it has been decided they don't exist for all practical purposes.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Harry Potter and The Rehabilitation of Rowling
With the launch of a new Hogwarts video game comes a concerted effort to erase J.K. Rowling’s transphobia and protect her profitable image
https://christopherkeelty.medium.com/harry-potter-and-the-rehabilitation-of-rowling-458682d91efd

I was sufficiently ired by this (I hope) unfounded attack to be moved to a response. Not knowing what Ms Rowling' offences were -- and not wishing to plough through the article to find out -- I settled on anodyne and sui generis

Mick Harper wrote:
As someone of Ms Rowling's age and general cultural background, I ought to explain a few things for the benefit of younger readers. We are bewildered by the whole transgender phenomenon. In our day it was a medical condition afflicting a small number of unfortunate people born with some kind of genetic maladaptation. Then, all of a sudden, it became something else entirely. We have scrambled to keep up, we have no doubt been maladroit in our phraseology, but our hearts have resolutely stayed in the right place. We are on their side!

But me and JK Rowling (and Germaine Greer) have occasionally wanted to point out that, as with every great political passion, not everything is quite as straightforward as it seems, and being in a tremendous rush to defeat the reactionaries is not the best way to identify what those things are.

This elicited (I suppose) a predictable response from one of the political passionara's

Teresa Schlotman Wilensky wrote:
As someone of similar age and general cultural background, I have chosen NOT to be bewildered by transgender issues. I have chosen to educate myself by reading as much as I can and listening to transgender people and their allies. And more importantly I have chosen not to broadcast my ignorance or "old-fashioned" ideas on social media, or in comments sections, or even in casual discussions. I have asked questions and then listened to the answers. When what my old brain said to me inside my head was in contradiction with what the lived experiences are of people affected, I kept my mouth shut and listened harder.

So I riposted with standard AE

Mick Harper wrote:
But did you get it right or did you merely end up agreeing with your peers? Not that these are mutually exclusive but how did you know?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Teresa Schlotman Wilensky wrote:
You don't always get it right. No one does. But most folks appreciate that you are trying. And learning and growing rather than just opting out of trying to understand the changes in the world.

Mick Harper wrote:
This certainly applies to me -- but how do you know it applies to Ms Rowling? Couldn't she have been trying to understand the changes as much as you, and simply come to different conclusions from yours?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Jump to:  
Page 5 of 7

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group