Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy
I realized that you were trying to start a debate. That is why I deflected to a fictitious movie. I see no point in debating opinions.
Yes we have some idea about some things that happened in the past but most of what has come down is tainted by bias. We know the Mohawk and Algonquin lived in the past because they still live in the present as do the Brits and French. None of us, however, has a clear picture or understanding of what really happened back then because none of us was there to witness it. As has been pointed out many times, if there are 10 people who witness an event, not one story told by those 10 people will agree as to the details relating to their memory of what happened. Memory is selective. So we may have a crude idea of some of the events and people involved in historical events but we do not have a clear idea of any of the details.
Uh-huh so history isn't all BS now. Make up your mind Cliffy.
And we know the Mohawk and Algonquin lived in the past because they still live in the present... as do the Brits and French? Are you seriously so daft as to believe that's an intelligent argument?
Well, let's look at the French, shall we? The French exist in Canada now so they must have in past, like in the year 500. We know the French were here in the year 500 because they're here now.
Makes sense right?
Do you know how you really know when the French came to Canada? History
. That **** was written down and compiled and the stories were past on. History isn't so much laden with bias as it is skewed by perspective. Historians take these accounts, evaluate their sources and try to recreate those events. We don't know for sure what happened, but that's not because we weren't there. It's because the story is incomplete. In fact, often times we know a hell of a lot more about what happened then the people who were there.
Your example of ten people telling a different story of the same event illustrates precisely the use of history. Who knows more about the event? One person who was telling his story or someone not there hearing all ten stories? The more perspectives you get, the better your understanding. You would get more information from the multiple stories, corroborating and synthesizing the stories and evaluating the accuracy of a source.
Do you know all the details of the decisions that led up to the Iraq War? Well some of you pretend you do, but in reality most of us, even though we were around for the event, probably know less about it then future generations will. We know more about the Second World War now than most people knew at the time it was being fought.
That's how we figure things out. That's how most people gain knowledge in their day to day life. What you have done is decided that since this method cannot be 100% accurate and can be subjected to manipulation, the whole concept should be thrown out. But there are things that can be known this way. Intelligent people can see through the bias and evaluate the evidence. We couldn't even be having this discussion about history if we didn't have a historical base to work from. How do we even know the Second World War occurred?
Last edited by Corduroy; Nov 25th, 2011 at 06:35 PM..