Objective Fact? Or Interpretation?

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think I have ever read a history book that is objective.  Michael Coe's "Breaking the Maya Code" pillories opposing theories and tears into his professional collegues with gusto.   When Bancroft wrote his history of Utah using graduate students, he was very polite to Brigham Young to make sure he had access to Church archives.  Gibbon's histories of Rome are replete with Victorian moralization.  And so forth.  

[CA Steve]

Is scripture objective fact? After all, much of it is just canonized history.

[Calm]

Therefore we must look for the best explanation.

Why is something the "best" explanation? Because it explains what you think is the most important aspects to pay attention to in a way you find acceptable.

To someone who doesn't believe angels exist, an explanation involving angels will never be a "best" explanation. To someone who accepts only what can be seen, dark matter will not be a best explanation. To someone who focuses on having enough to eat and a shelter over their head at night, an explanation using national laws on immigration or global economics isn't going to be the best explanation for why he is cold and his stomach is growling.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

I am simply saying they are looking for the best explanation. Do you agree?

they are looking for the best scientific explanation...or hopefully so. For some scientists, the best explanation is the one that brings them the most recognition, the most money, tenure.

This may lead some to ignore data as irrelevant that could have an impact if considered relevant.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

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

"One" cannot find it.  At least not historiographically, because history-writing is a group effort which takes place through time.  It is the neverending story (loved the movie) which may or may not be true, but which has endless nuances and premutations.  Some say that a novel is more likely to be true, only because it can project verisimilitude, when dry history-writing cannot.

 

One is left with no objective measure to rely upon.  The only reliable measure is subjective -- the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

[Rivers]

I had a history professor that taught that there is no such thing as an unbiased approached to history. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 For some scientists, the best explanation is the one that brings them the most recognition, the most money, tenure.

 

but they are not true scientists.  A true scientist looks for the best explanation, wants to learn something new, and wants to challenge current knowledge. 

Why did Einstein get famous? 

 

This may lead some to ignore data as irrelevant that could have an impact if considered relevant.

 

The some are irrelevant, I am not talking about science deniers. True scientists are look for the best explanation 

1. Explains all (or most) of data 

2. Makes accurate predictions

3. Is falsifiable 

 

 

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

 

Yes, but we need to look for the most useful and best explanation. 

Edited September 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[pogi]

Yes, but we need to look for the most useful and best explanation. 

 

If those explanations are subjective, then do you agree that "best" is also subjective?

[Teancum]

"One" cannot find it.  At least not historiographically, because history-writing is a group effort which takes place through time.  It is the neverending story (loved the movie) which may or may not be true, but which has endless nuances and premutations.  Some say that a novel is more likely to be true, only because it can project verisimilitude, when dry history-writing cannot.

 

One is left with no objective measure to rely upon.  The only reliable measure is subjective -- the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

But anyone can claim a supernatural experience and then tell someone to go pray about it.  There are all sorts of "miracles" and claimed "visions" that people of other faiths would claim to have witnessed and even had a confirmation of though they may say it differently than LDS do.  I think a study on how reliable the testimony of the Holy Spirit is, an entity or person that cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist would be interesting.  Also  much of the human race and their religious and faith traditions has no concept of such a person to teach truth.

 

As for history I think the discipline is more rigorous than what you state for good objective historians.  Last of all there is the scientific method which more and more to me at least seems the best way to determine truth.

[Teancum]

I had a history professor that taught that there is no such thing as an unbiased approached to history. 

 

 

Most likely there is no unbiased approach to anything. But in any discipline we act in we do our best to set it aside if we want to get the best answers.

[Ahab]

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/ .

I think so, and I think it's just as important to consider dual perspectives on what writers write as well as the writer. Line by line, and precept by precept.

Any writing is either the truth or a fiction or a combination of both, with the latter 2 of those 3 amounting to the same thing, and while immersing myself in a writing I also listen for whispers from the One I depend on to know what truth is.

[Teancum]

I think so, and I think it's just as important to consider dual perspectives on what writers write as well as the writer. Line by line, and precept by precept.

Any writing is either the truth or a fiction or a combination of both, with the latter 2 of those 3 amounting to the same thing, and while immersing myself in a writing I also listen for whispers from the One I depend on to know what truth is.

 

 

A good historian should doing a bio of JS should ignore an opinion one way ore the other as to whether JS really experienced the supernatural visions and revelations he claimed.  Report what he claimed, discuss what those around him left as to how they viewed his claims both pro and con, talk about what we do know about the man both from what he left in the record and what others left then let other form their own conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

"One" cannot find it.  At least not historiographically, because history-writing is a group effort which takes place through time.  It is the neverending story (loved the movie) which may or may not be true, but which has endless nuances and premutations.  Some say that a novel is more likely to be true, only because it can project verisimilitude, when dry history-writing cannot.

 

One is left with no objective measure to rely upon.  The only reliable measure is subjective -- the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

But anyone can claim a supernatural experience and then tell someone to go pray about it.  There are all sorts of "miracles" and claimed "visions" that people of other faiths would claim to have witnessed and even had a confirmation of though they may say it differently than LDS do.  I think a study on how reliable the testimony of the Holy Spirit is, an entity or person that cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist would be interesting.  Also  much of the human race and their religious and faith traditions has no concept of such a person to teach truth.

Subjective experience, by its very nature, is personal and non-transferrable.  Anyone can claim anything in a religious context, and seldom is there any way of empirical demonstration of such claims.  Each culture will have its own mode of personal confirmation of claims.  I see no problem here.  Perhaps you could clarify your unease with subjectivity -- which is really an integral part of the human condition.

 

As for history I think the discipline is more rigorous than what you state for good objective historians.  Last of all there is the scientific method which more and more to me at least seems the best way to determine truth.

I have no problem with the rigorous, objective approach taken in the sciences or math.  At least there we can test the hypotheses adequately over time.  Indeed, some sciences are used by historians (archeology, chronology, etc.), but finding objectivity in history-writing may be a fool's errand in most cases.  It is true that there are all manner of rules or canons of procedure for proper history-writing, some of which come from logic, legal rules of evidence, forensic science, but which mostly have to do with rules for documentation (citation of sources, and distinctions between primary and secondary sources) -- which at times become akin to religious rituals.  Consensus and prestige can become the touchstone for much of what passes for good history-writing, followed perhaps by revisionism, and then post-modern versions of history.  Most important of all may be what sells well in the free market place of ideas, and not what is actually true.

[TheSkepticChristian]

If those explanations are subjective, then do you agree that "best" is also subjective?

 

Again, the "best" explains all the data, makes accurate predictions, and is falsifiable. 

The best may be subjective, but it is useful. We need useful explanations to survive, especially in medical science. 

Edited September 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Is Back]

Are the historical portions of the Institute Manual objective, or point of view?

[ERayR]

Yes, but we need to look for the most useful and best explanation. 

 

Useful and best to who and by what criteria?

[pogi]

Also  much of the human race and their religious and faith traditions has no concept of such a person to teach truth.

 

I would venture to say that most do.  Conceptual ideas about the Holy Spirit may vary, but almost all people believe in a source of inspiration outside of themselves.  The Holy Spirit is a common phrase among Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  Again, while ideas may vary about who or what he is, there seems to be a common experience among all people.  Even the Buddhist's describe it as "the still small voice of reason".  Go figure!  Atheists share in this experience too and recognize it as something special or different, they just don't attribute it to God.  Others attribute it to "the universe", etc. 

Edited September 27, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

A good historian should doing a bio of JS [bold] should ignore an opinion one way ore the other[/bold!] as to whether JS really experienced the supernatural visions and revelations he claimed. Report what he claimed, discuss what those around him left as to how they viewed his claims both pro and con, talk about what we do know about the man both from what he left in the record and what others left then let other form their own conclusions.

Good advice except for advising ignoring. Mormon is a good example of a historian and he didn't ignore his own or any other opinion. No need to act like an atheist or agnostic when recording or revising historic records.

History, real history, is truth and when writing or reading historic records the goal should be to simply write what really happened as well as you know how with words.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

I would venture to say that most do.  Conceptual ideas about the Holy Spirit may vary, but almost all people believe in a source of inspiration outside of themselves.  The Holy Spirit is a common phrase among Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  Again, while ideas may vary about who or what he is, there seems to be a common experience among all people.  Even the Buddhist's describe it as "the still small voice of reason".  Go figure!  Atheists share in this experience too and recognize it as something special or different, they just don't attribute it to God.  Others attribute it to "the universe", etc. 

Yes.  I have met a number of people of have had cosmic experiences.  New Age stuff.

[Ahab]

Yes. I have met a number of people of have had cosmic experiences. New Age stuff.

New Age as opposed to Dark Ages stuff. The spirit of the restoration and even the reformation has helped many feel the influence of who we refer to as the Holy Spirit. Yet a rose by any other name is still a rose.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Useful and best to who and by what criteria?

 

Read what I am saying, I said it like 1000 times 

[HappyJackWagon]

Are the historical portions of the Institute Manual objective, or point of view?

Obviously point of view. The narrative is told for the purpose of building faith. That is the bias. It's not necessarily a bad bias but it is a bias nonetheless. That means the institute manual is designed to tell certain stories in certain ways to accomplish a certain aim.

 

If you think it's objective fact, ask yourself how and why the objective facts have changed so dramatically on issues such as BoM translation with the seerstone, Joseph's practice of polygamy, (basically everything addressed in the essays). It is clear the history that has been taught has not been objective fact so it would seem a stretch to assume that everything now is completely objective and factual. That's the nature of history. Pure objectivity is impossible. There is always an agenda.