site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1513 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 10, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How do people determine which past accounts are to be counted as valid historical records, and which are to be dismissed as past propaganda? For example, there's the whole Carthaginian infant sacrifice issue — real history, or anti-Carthaginian libel? Or Aztec skull towers — actually existed, or just lying conquistadors demonizing their Indigenous victims? In those cases, we at least have recent archeological finds giving solid support to one side (but even then, some still dispute them). But when such physical evidence isn't obtainable, what then?

I'm inclined to believe the Carthaginian infant sacrifice stories, as we see it complained about in the bible, and Tyre and Sidon etc. were right by Israel.

Sure, but that just belabors the point — you think those Biblical "complaints" are a valid historical account, but plenty of people question the historical accuracy of, well, practically every part of the Bible, and those who argue the other side would dismiss these stories of Carthaginian infant sacrifice as being just as much false anti-Carthaginian libel as the Roman ones. So again, how do you decide? Here, the archeology helps, but without that, is it really just "pick a side and agree with their claims" like @hydroacetylene says?

But surely corroboration from across the mediterranean should be treated as evidence?

Are you talking about analysis of historical accounts? Because this is the bread and butter of history as a social science. This is a very big subject but I can give you a simple outline. This is the kind of stuff that would be covered in a classic "History of the Roman Republic" first-year university class. You get assigned a reading and in the tutorial sections you would ask questions like:

  • What is the author's purpose?
  • What "side" is the author on?
  • What is the social background of the author?
  • When did the author write this?
  • What might cause him to portray events this way?
  • Was he present at these events, or is he hearing this second-hand? If so, who were his sources?
  • Is there any information he might be leaving out?
  • Are there things which seem exaggerated, or maybe false?
  • How would the author have known about this specific detail?
  • Does this text match what we know from archaeological evidence?
  • Does this text agree with other things written about this event? If not, why might that be?
  • Do you think this text would be flattering to the author's patron?
  • Does the author seem to care strictly about accuracy, or are there other elements he prioritizes?

etc. etc. Basic textual analysis. Use what you know about the period and the situation and the author to expand upon what is written and try to think about all the different influences that might have transformed the narrative from what happened in reality to how it reads on the page.

If you want to read history books that go into this kind of stuff, the ideal subjects are periods where there are limited historical sources: I used classical Rome as an example and it's a great one. Historians in these books will often tell you very directly how they are analyzing accounts and what inferences they are making from them and the other historical evidence available to them.

Thank you for making this post so I didn't have to. I would add that there is a great deal of historical phenomina that we only know anything about due to polemics written against them, decrying their evil and error. Early Christian "heresies" being a good example.

A bunch of these heresies hung on for long enough that we have, if not an objective view, a wide enough variety of biased views to cancel each other out.

I pick a side and agree with their claims.

Historians have flowerier justifications.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats