Objective Fact? Or Interpretation?

[Robert F. Smith]

A friend told me that the problem with writing a biography about Joseph Smith is that it cannot be objective.  To illustrate, he added that 

Dan Vogel said, "I examine historical issues like, Is the Book of Mormon genuine ancient history? If not, then what is the best explanation for what happened?  Were there real or fake plates under the cloth? Of course, I don't think one has to always discuss such things; history is a big subject with many approaches. But I don't think a meaningful biography can be written about Joseph Smith without taking an interpretive stand." 

 

My friend adds that many apologists and critics insist that History is about obvious historical facts.   But are they correct?  Isn't history not facts, but rather the interpretation of facts?  Is Vogel right to put so much emphasis on POV?  https://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/just-the-facts-maam-eh-carrs-what-is-history/ .

[Kevin Christensen]

I've got another essay on this very topic coming out from Interpreter in the next few weeks. In the meantime, here is something I put together a few years back on the importance of how we choose to frame our approach to anything in the past.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Jesus_and_Joseph_Smith

Notice, in particular the similar thoughts expressed by McDade and Bushman. So the really important thing, as Goff keeps explaining, is to be aware of the critical implications of our own approach, and also to have an idea of how to evaluate the comparative value of your own approach.

See, for instance, this one by Goff.

http://www.ijmsonline.org/archives/author/alangoff

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

I've got another essay on this very topic coming out from Interpreter in the next few weeks. In the meantime, here is something I put together a few years back on the importance of how we choose to frame our approach to anything in the past.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Jesus_and_Joseph_Smith

Notice, in particular the similar thoughts expressed by McDade and Bushman. So the really important thing, as Goff keeps explaining, is to be aware of the critical implications of our own approach, and also to have an idea of how to evaluate the comparative value of your own approach.

.............................................................

Succinct and very sophisticated coverage of the problem.  FAIRMORMON is coming of age. Thanks, Kevin.

 

I loved the joke at the beginning of Goff's piece, but am so intimidated by his approach, that I'll save it for later.

[Kenngo1969]

Succinct and very sophisticated coverage of the problem.  FAIRMORMON is coming of age. Thanks, Kevin.

 

I loved the joke at the beginning of Goff's piece, but am so intimidated by his approach, that I'll save it for later.

You?

 

Intimidated?

 

Boy, I never thought I'd see that day!     I guess I better make sure my "fire insurance" is up to date!

 

[ERayR]

A friend told me that the problem with writing a biography about Joseph Smith is that it cannot be objective.  To illustrate, he added that 

Dan Vogel said, "I examine historical issues like, Is the Book of Mormon genuine ancient history? If not, then what is the best explanation for what happened?  Were there real or fake plates under the cloth? Of course, I don't think one has to always discuss such things; history is a big subject with many approaches. But I don't think a meaningful biography can be written about Joseph Smith without taking an interpretive stand." 

 

My friend adds that many apologists and critics insist that History is about obvious historical facts.   But are they correct?  Isn't history not facts, but rather the interpretation of facts?  Is Vogel right to put so much emphasis on POV?  https://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/just-the-facts-maam-eh-carrs-what-is-history/ .

 

All we do, you, me, Vogal or anybody else is POV.  All our interpretations are POV.

[Robert F. Smith]

All we do, you, me, Vogal or anybody else is POV.  All our interpretations are POV.

Maybe so, but interpretations of what?  Off the wall stuff, or burdened by careful assessement of a wide array of facts, along with an assessment of a wide array of points of view?  A POV need not be burdened by anything except visceral feelings.  A good deal of modern art is produced by that.  No skill in drawing is required, and even a chimpanzee can do modern art.  Just fling various colors of paint around and hope some of it hits the canvas (reward the chimp with a banana when he hits the canvas).

 

What makes for good historiography?  Skill in writing novels?

[TheSkepticChristian]

All we do, you, me, Vogal or anybody else is POV.  All our interpretations are POV.

 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over." - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe so, but interpretations of what?  Off the wall stuff, or burdened by careful assessement of a wide array of facts, along with an assessment of a wide array of points of view?  A POV need not be burdened by anything except visceral feelings.  A good deal of modern art is produced by that.  No skill in drawing is required, and even a chimpanzee can do modern art.  Just fling various colors of paint around and hope some of it hits the canvas (reward the chimp with a banana when he hits the canvas).

 

What makes for good historiography?  Skill in writing novels?

 

 I personally don't care for Cubism, but I'll take any of Picasso's Cubist period paintings you have.

[Robert F. Smith]

 I personally don't care for Cubism, but I'll take any of Picasso's Cubist period paintings you have.

I agree, but that is not the sort of modern art I had in mind.  I have watched friends do the kind of art I described.  They were especially good at it when drunk, and they achieved some wonderful results -- results which a motivated chimpanzee might duplicate, without being drunk.

[pogi]

They were especially good at it when drunk, and they achieved some wonderful results -- results which a motivated chimpanzee might duplicate, without being drunk.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Pure objectivity is impossible. Every experience, every piece of knowledge is skewed through individual interpretation. What I call blue, someone else may call Navy blue or Royal blue. What I call rich, someone else may call middle class. What I call a lie someone else may call a carefully worded denial. What I call inappropriate behavior others will call acceptable for the time and culture. We all have our bias so I agree that any biography of JS would be bias in some way. It's inevitable.

[Teancum]

A friend told me that the problem with writing a biography about Joseph Smith is that it cannot be objective.  To illustrate, he added that 

Dan Vogel said, "I examine historical issues like, Is the Book of Mormon genuine ancient history? If not, then what is the best explanation for what happened?  Were there real or fake plates under the cloth? Of course, I don't think one has to always discuss such things; history is a big subject with many approaches. But I don't think a meaningful biography can be written about Joseph Smith without taking an interpretive stand." 

 

My friend adds that many apologists and critics insist that History is about obvious historical facts.   But are they correct?  Isn't history not facts, but rather the interpretation of facts?  Is Vogel right to put so much emphasis on POV?  https://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/just-the-facts-maam-eh-carrs-what-is-history/ .

So what is truth, where is it and how can one find it?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Pure objectivity is impossible. Every experience, every piece of knowledge is skewed through individual interpretation. What I call blue, someone else may call Navy blue or Royal blue. What I call rich, someone else may call middle class. What I call a lie someone else may call a carefully worded denial. What I call inappropriate behavior others will call acceptable for the time and culture. We all have our bias so I agree that any biography of JS would be bias in some way. It's inevitable.

 

bad examples, all of your examples are opinions. Opinions are not useful. Historians look for explanations, not opinions. 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past" - Dr. Ehrman

 

For example, what explains the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses? 

A) A real angle

B) A space alien 

C) Imagination or hallucination 

 

I agree an objective biography is not possible, but not because of useless opinions. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Historians look for explanations

 

i.e. opinions

[HappyJackWagon]

bad examples, all of your examples are opinions. Opinions are not useful. Historians look for explanations, not opinions. 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past" - Dr. Ehrman

 

For example, what explains the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses? 

A) A real angle

B) A space alien 

C) Imagination 

 

I agree an objective biography is not possible, but not because of useless opinions. 

To me my opinion is truth otherwise I wouldn't hold it. That truth colors everything else I view. It effects my paradigm and I will truthfully experience life and knowledge in a way different than you. It doesn't mean I'm right or wrong.

 

How can a historian say what "probably" happened unless they are willing to privilege some sources or information over others? What informs those decisions for what should or should not be privileged?

 

Multiple people will give multiple explanations of the BoM witnesses and each person and each explanation will be colored by their POV and the privilege of information.

 

ETA- Do you think the witnesses would all describe the exact same experience. Would God and Joseph give the exact same "history" of the first vision? Or would each view it from their own POV?

Edited September 25, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[TheSkepticChristian]

To me my opinion is truth otherwise I wouldn't hold it. That truth colors everything else I view. It effects my paradigm and I will truthfully experience life and knowledge in a way different than you. It doesn't mean I'm right or wrong.

 

Yes, but some of your opinions are not useful for History. For example,"Pizza is the best meal" "He was a good person" if you do not define the word good. 

 

i.e. opinions

 

or not useless views 

 

Multiple people will give multiple explanations of the BoM witnesses and each person and each explanation will be colored by their POV and the privilege of information.

 

 

I agree with that, we can debate useful explanations. 

Edited September 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes, but some of your opinions are not useful for History. For example,"Pizza is the best meal" "He was a good person" if you do not define the word good. 

 

 

or not useless views 

 

 

I agree with that, we can debate useful explanations. 

Therfore everything is subjective.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Therfore everything is subjective.

 

I disagree. Our explanations may be subjective, but the world and the universe don't care about opinions. 

 

"“The universe is the way it is , whether we like it or not" - Lawrence Krauss 

 

Therefore we must look for the best explanation. 

[HappyJackWagon]

I disagree. Our explanations may be subjective, but the world and the universe don't care about opinions. 

 

"“The universe is the way it is , whether we like it or not" - Lawrence Krauss 

 

Therefore we must look for the best explanation. 

Ok- we disagree.

 

 

Can you tell me something that is absolutely, completely, verifiably true that is not colored by perspective, privilege, or interpretation?

Edited September 25, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[TheSkepticChristian]

Can you tell me something that is absolutely, completely, verifiably true that is not colored by perspective, privilege, or interpretation?

 

I said, "Our explanations may be subjective, but the universe don't care about opinions" 

Therefore we must look for the best explanation. 

 

Best explanation examples in History: No comment

 

Best explanation examples in Science: Biological Evolution, Big Bang, 4 Billion year Earth, Global Warming, Relativity.

[HappyJackWagon]

I said, "Our explanations may be subjective, but the universe don't care about opinions" 

Therefore we must look for the best explanation. 

 

Best explanation examples in History: No comment

 

Best explanation examples in Science: Biological Evolution, Big Bang, 4 Billion year Earth, Global Warming, Relativity.

Are you trying to say that we have a perfect, complete, absolutely verifable understanding of these explanations in science? You give scientists far more credit than I do. There is significant disagreement on various approaches to understanding these "scientific truths".

 

If you are taking the agnostic approach that we simply can't understand perfect truth then I might agree with you. But that's the original point I was making by saying that everything is subjective and reliant on our personal understandings and the limitations of those understandings.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Are you trying to say that we have a perfect, complete, absolutely verifable understanding of these explanations in science? You give scientists far more credit than I do. There is significant disagreement on various approaches to understanding these "scientific truths".

 

I am not saying that, I think we are speaking two different languages.

I am not saying scientists have the absolute philosophical explanation, I am simply saying they are looking for the best explanation. Do you agree?  

Edited September 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

I am not saying that, I think we are speaking two different languages.

I am not saying scientists have the absolute philosophical explanation, I am simply saying they are looking for the best explanation. Do you agree?  

Yes. But their explanations are dependent on their interpretations of the data, both philosophically and scientifically.

Truth is subjective and limited to our understandings no matter how hard we try to find absolute truth or how pure our motives may be for finding it. Even our search for truth is colored by our POV. It's unavoidable.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yes. But their explanations are dependent on their interpretations of the data, both philosophically and scientifically.

 

Scientists look for the best available explanations. For example, in Biology only the Theory of Evolution explains all the data. 

Confirmed scientific predictions make the theory even stronger. Do you know of another Theory in Biology that successfully challenges Evolution? 

 

and you are wrong about the scientists, please watch 

 

 

He said at the end, "Nature pushes us to the reality...It is real, there is nothing we can do about it [to disprove it]" 

Edited September 25, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

TSC, do you agree that every "explanation" is subjective?

Edited September 25, 2015 by pogi