Rules of Historical Reasoning

[neilgodfrey]

I've not read Carrier but Aviezer Tucker has had very useful contributions to the use of Bayesianism in history. I have an incomplete digital copy of Carrier's book, so I'll have to see how he interacts specifically with Tucker's work when I can. Any thoughts on Carrier's treatment of Tucker's work?

I don't recall what Carrier wrote about Tucker, but Tucker's discussion of Bayes, from what I recall, is consistent with Carrier's use. I have been referencing Mark Day in this thread and Day also agrees with the values of Bayesian reasoning, with the only difference being that Day is less sure that Bayesian reasoning can be applied to "just about anything" that comes up in historical research.

[Ben C. Smith]

The Jerusalem temple in the gospels is a literary temple.

Given that many works of history are also solid examples of literature (of which Thucydides' opus may be considered chief), is the Athens in History of the Peloponnesian War a literary Athens?

Yes. This is especially evident given that Thucydides blends historical and creative/imaginative scenarios relating to Athens in the one work.

Okay, good. We are on the same page here, at least. Your way of explaining your viewpoint on these matters is odd and roundabout to me, but I think progress has been made in some quarters, at any rate.

[neilgodfrey]

Back on the "literary Athens" in Thucydides .....

When we study Athens through the writings of Thucydides, everything we learn is sourced from Thucydides' literature. If we study Athens by visiting the geographical place (in real life or on google maps?) we are visiting a real (or virtual) Athens and examining its real/virtual historical remains.

We can attempt to match up what we read in Thucydides with what we see "in real life", and I suppose that's one way to potentially bring us closer to historical reconstruction.

[neilgodfrey]

Okay, good. We are on the same page here, at least. Your way of explaining your viewpoint on these matters is odd and roundabout to me, but I think progress has been made in some quarters, at any rate.

Possibly. Some time back I began to zero in on the question of "how do we know what happened in history?" and I learned that very little has been written about that question in any depth. Most historians do just assume the people and events they study are historical because, well, everyone assumes that and we have "loads of evidence". Not all historians are very interested in philosophical or epistemological questions.

Many historians do just assume -- but it takes a bit of effort, sometimes, to learn that they have very good grounds for their assumptions. There really are "proofs" for Hitler, Julius Caesar, Socrates, etc.

My librarianship studies, I think, helped me, too, because in those I came to identify and appreciate differences in "public knowledge", "scholarly knowledge", and some others.

But then along come the biblical scholars and they bring the same sorts of assumptions about their topic of interest, and very often, at a superficial level, it can appear that they are approaching their topic the same way as other historians approach theirs. It is when one takes a closer look that one sees the great gulf between the two.

When other historians appeal in loose-language to what is in fact "public knowledge" about their historical persons then it does look like biblical historians are doing the same when they, too, appeal to "public knowledge" about Jesus to justify their models. The former really does have evidence that justifies some fundamental overlap between public and scholarly knowledge; the latter does not.

[Paul the Uncertain]

I've not read Carrier but Aviezer Tucker has had very useful contributions to the use of Bayesianism in history. I have an incomplete digital copy of Carrier's book, so I'll have to see how he interacts specifically with Tucker's work when I can. Any thoughts on Carrier's treatment of Tucker's work?

Carrier says his Proving History wasn't influenced by Tucker, but that he has since then realized the confluence of their interests and approach.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/3923

[neilgodfrey]

I've not read Carrier but Aviezer Tucker has had very useful contributions to the use of Bayesianism in history. I have an incomplete digital copy of Carrier's book, so I'll have to see how he interacts specifically with Tucker's work when I can. Any thoughts on Carrier's treatment of Tucker's work?

Carrier says his Proving History wasn't influenced by Tucker, but that he has since then realized the confluence of their interests and approach.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/3923

Fwiw, I posted on Tucker's discussion back in 2013: Real Historians Do Bayes!

Tucker subsequently reviewed Carrier's work: A Historian Reviews Carrier: “The Bayesian perspective on historiography is commonsensical”

[Paul E.]

I've not read Carrier but Aviezer Tucker has had very useful contributions to the use of Bayesianism in history. I have an incomplete digital copy of Carrier's book, so I'll have to see how he interacts specifically with Tucker's work when I can. Any thoughts on Carrier's treatment of Tucker's work?

Carrier says his Proving History wasn't influenced by Tucker, but that he has since then realized the confluence of their interests and approach.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/3923

Thank you for the link! It is stunning that Carrier was unaware of prominent work in the relevant field prior to publishing a book about it. It is flatly incompetent, full stop. It makes one wonder about what collegiate process and publisher peer review process to which it was subjected.

From what I understand of Carrier's work (admittedly little, as I have not read his book), he seems less interested in Tucker's use of Bayes (to elucidate historical reasoning and philosophy) than he is in making a particular case. If that is true, and I admit I could be completely wrong, then I think Tucker would call it limiting and disconnected.

Regardless, I am convinced Bayes can be a very useful pedagogical and analytical tool in addition to general tools such as those discussed in an introductory-level work like Day's, especially in separating out heuristics, evidence, hypotheses, and theories in a more formalistic way. Imo, it would make our educated opinions more educated, both on the scholar's and consumer's parts.

EDIT: I just saw the reference to a Tucker review of Carrier in another post, and I have had only the chance to skim it. Upon this brief reading, I think it gels with my previous understanding.

[JoeWallack]

The Jerusalem temple in the gospels is a literary temple.

Given that many works of history are also solid examples of literature (of which Thucydides' opus may be considered chief), is the Athens in History of the Peloponnesian War a literary Athens?

Yes. This is especially evident given that Thucydides blends historical and creative/imaginative scenarios relating to Athens in the one work.

Okay, good. We are on the same page here, at least. Your way of explaining your viewpoint on these matters is odd and roundabout to me, but I think progress has been made in some quarters, at any rate.

JW:
Ben, you could continue this tact, but Australians are very competitive at tacking and this discussion could take years and cost thousands of words. Isn't it obvious by now that Godfrey has higher standards for what qualifies as evidence than you do regarding
MJ/HJ? When Doherty was here, towards the end, I just asked him if he was an Advocate for MJ and he confessed that he was. Why not likewise ask Godfrey and see what he says.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[neilgodfrey]

Isn't it obvious by now that Godfrey has higher standards for what qualifies as evidence than you do regarding
MJ/HJ? When Doherty was here, towards the end, I just asked him if he was an Advocate for MJ and he confessed that he was. Why not likewise ask Godfrey and see what he says.

I have kept my motives and agenda secretly locked away at About Vridar and What is Vridar?. For anyone inclined to think that books a person spends his money on for his private reading collection are an indicator of his personal interests then I can point to no better guide to my interests than my online entries at librarything. The book I happen to be half way through reading right now is Elon's The Pity of It All. Last week I read Katz's From prejudice to destruction: anti-semitism, 1700-1933 and a collation of essays, Jewish history : essays in honour of Chimen Abramsky (topics no doubt dear to JW's own heart).

I am sure we all think it is a good thing to understand the standards of evidence in historical research as practised fairly widely by professional historians across the board. The OP and a follow up post sum it up fairly well, imo.

It is easy for anyone interested in Christian origins and the historical Jesus to become almost exclusively immersed in the far more creative standards of evidence found in the biblical scholar guild generally: criteriology, "why would anyone make it up?" type questions, and more recently a distorted version of memory theory.

The good thing about such creative standards is that they can yield an endless variety of conclusions, each one of them potentially supported by a personalized list of dot-point arguments.

[MrMacSon]

.... Some time back I began to zero in on the question of "how do we know what happened in history?" and I learned that very little has been written about that question in any depth. Most historians do just assume the people and events they study are historical because, well, everyone assumes that and we have "loads of evidence". Not all historians are very interested in philosophical or epistemological questions.

Many historians do just assume -- but it takes a bit of effort, sometimes, to learn that they have very good grounds for their assumptions.

Many people have been able to 'assume' they have good grounds for their assumptions b/c there has been laxity around the terminology for what constitutes information or 'evidence' v commentary or narratives. This has been especially true for 'biblical studies'.