That isn't what Neil said there at all. Which makes it pretty clear you aren't engaging with Neil, but just going off your reactionary ideals and what you assume Neil is meaning.lsayre wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:29 am I diectly engaged this:The implication here is clearly that one belief system is as good as another. Or in other words, your truth is not my truth...Implication: A flat earther, a Christian fundamentalist, a QAnon conspiracy theorist, . . . . they will all point to facts to demonstrate their beliefs. The reason you may not agree with how they interpret those facts or the conclusions they draw from them is because they have a different hypothesis or belief-system that is not being made clear to you. Nothing is to be gained by accusing someone of being "pig headed" or "wilfully ignorant" or "intellectually dishonest" -- unless one can show that they have clear evidence that they are not being honest with their own world-view or belief-system. Someone's working hypothesis might give different weight to certain facts, or different interpretations of them from the one you have. Such disagreements are not signs of dishonesty or stupidity.
At no point anywhere there did Neil say that any belief system is as good as another.
What makes it clearer is your clutching to "truth"... because historians aren't grabbing at "truth." They are creating narratives about the past, which are informed by their backgrounds, biases, and the methodological frameworks they choose to work with. A Marxist analysis of ancient Rome emphasizes the lower and working classes, and expounds on class-conflicts and economic disparity. A capitalist analysis of ancient Rome may focus on Rome's market expansion, the accumulation of wealth, and privatization in the Roman Empire. A Post-Colonialist analysis of ancient Rome would look at how Rome expanded, colonized, exploited, and imperialized other foreign powers and the effects this had on their populace. A Feminist analysis would look at the treatment of women, the structures of male-dominated space they lived in, and how they exercised their autonomy (or were restricted from doing so) in Roman society, or how Roman men and women conceptualized their gendered roles. A Queer analysis would start looking to complicate and discuss the intricacies of ancient Roman gender and how it does not even graft onto modern binary thinking in the same way we do; and would also look at things like homosexuality and how Romans conceptualized that as well.
Each of these analyses is biased and focuses on specific contours of ancient Roman society and helps us to view and document various ways to conceptualize, narrativize, and reconstruct what life in the ancient world was like.
They do not use the same methods as each other. A biographer, a historical journalist, and a traditional historian all use different methods from each other and all with different focuses and results. This isn't a matter of truth, but a matter of historical analysis. And we have a far better time producing coherent and interesting views of history by having diverse methodologies, frameworks, backgrounds, and biases at play, than when we are just acting like Stephan and pearl clutching in between virtue signal posts of "I try to be fair! Fairness is good! Look how manly my objectivity is! You are an idiot for having your ideas!"