Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: December 19, 2014 04:24PM
Very interesting post, Human. Allow me to push back a little.
Generally, as one moves from the hard sciences, like physics, through the soft sciences, and finally to history, arguably one correspondingly moves from objectivity to subjectivity, meaning that individual human biases play a greater role in theory formation and acceptance.
History, being on the far extreme of what might still be called science in some sense, is more subject to such biases of subjectivity than most any other legitimate intellectual endeavor. After all, there is no opportunity for verification or replication by experiment. Notwithstanding, the fact that the enterprise of history is largely subjective, does not mean that historical events are themselves ultimately subjective, or that there can be no right or wrong historical claims.
The historian can only turn to the data of the historical documents and apply interpretation to arrive at a theory of some sort. If two "scholars" by their expressed theories, have read and considered the same documents, and by their expressed theories are not arguing over errors in verifiable facts, you start to split hairs when you then move to degrees of competence in order to find "the best" or most correct interpretation.
True, in dealing with ancient history, and ancient language texts, language competence in the context of a given culture, can be extremely important to achieve the proper nuance of interpretation. But these interpretative elements should appear naturally within the theoretical argument, and therefore also be subject to factual debate, without setting aside the real issue and pursuing a peripheral discussion about the general competence of the scholars taking a position.
If, at the end of the day, we are arguing (rather passionately it seems) about "competence" and making belief decisions by weighing credentials, rather than talking about the texts themselves, and their underlying cultural context, haven't we shifted the discussion from scholarship to rhetoric?
The validity of any theory is in the theory itself, as presented--not in the credentials of the scholar proposing the theory. Language translations, and cultural factors, are part of this argument, and can be attacked independently of one's credentials. If disagreements center around errors of verifiable fact, either directly or indirectly, the discussion can continue. However, if the facts are fully known and understood, such that further discussion is merely interpretative, there is really nothing more to say.
If at the end of the day we have to "trust" one scholar over another we should look to the presentation of their theories, and the presentation of objections to such theories. If factual disputes are apparent, then, of course, check the facts. Resort to credentials usually only means that the theories themselves fail in definitiveness. It seems to me that we should just accept that, and not thereafter move the discussion to an ad hominem, microscopic examination of credentials in a desperate attempt to achieve closure.
_______________________________
HUMAN: So, what works do we have from Michael Grant and Richard Carrier?
. . . .
Why is this important? If someone wants to profess they know what latin and greek texts mean, they have to demonstrate they know how to read the languages, Latin and Greek at the least. How do you make that demonstration? One way is to list the teachers who taught the scholar how to read ancient texts and the Universities and Colleges where the teaching took place. Another way, and perhaps a proof positive way, is by translating the texts into English yourself.
COMMENT: If competing theories differ as to the meaning of the words in an ancient text, or the cultural background that informs such a meaning, then that should be addressed in the arguments for or against such theories, without resort to making a comparative list or analysis of credentials. These arguments will typically include alternative interpretations or translations, along with why one translation is favored over another.
____________________________________
Question: what has Richard Carrier translated, and what does he plan to translate next?
COMMENT: It doesn't matter. Again, the theoretical discussion should include substantive objections to translations and interpretations, with reasoned arguments as to why one is preferred over another. Resorting to credentials is ad hominem, and not appropriate, in my view.
If you don't take this view, any scholar could just play the "credentials card" and end the discussion.
______________________________________
HUMAN: Some claim that history is all about the facts and nothing but the facts. This is true only in a very limited sense. There is a whole discussion in this which I will skip to simply state the unavoidable conclusion: History is at bottom a narrative endeavour.
COMMENT: True, but narratives are based upon presumed facts that are true or false, whether we can get at the "truth" of such facts or not; or whether they provide a complete or distorted explanation of an historical event. Events happened or they didn't. Another event was a contributing cause or it wasn't. People were motivated in certain prescribed ways or they were not.
______________________________________
HUMAN: Out of the facts, text and archeology being the primary driver of historical fact, narrative is written. The narrative is called history. History writing, like all writing, betrays the author. When we look at the work we cannot help but see the man. That’s unavoidable. It’s this fact about history writing that contributes to history being an emotional experience, and why it feels personal.
COMMENT: Yes. Fully agree. But this is the nature of history. It is when we treat it as a science that we get in trouble. Moreover, the problem is not that historical facts are neither true of false (no post-modernism), or that there is no legitimate level of explanation, it is because of the extreme difficulty of getting at the whole truth, or providing a complete explanation.
____________________________________
HUMAN: History is more than the facts. For example, M. Grant came out of Harrow and Cambridge with training in the classics specializing in numismatics. There’s more to a bronze Roman coin than the fact of the coin’s existence. It requires interpretation. If M. Grant specialized in terra sigillata then he would know how to interpret the pottery of ancient Italy and Gaul. The pottery is the fact, what the historian writes about the pottery is the narrative. History is not a string of facts, it is a tapestry of interpretation. Again, this in unavoidable.
COMMENT: Again, yes. You can describe it in poetic language if you want to. Just do not go on to suggest that there are no facts of the matter in history. Some interpretations are correct, or more correct, and some are not, or less correct. But underlying it all are real events, real people, with real mental states and motivations.
______________________________________
HUMAN: Facts alone have never signified. To believe so is to pretend their isn’t an unstated, hidden premise in the signifier. That is dishonest. Facts require interpretation, and therefore betrays the interpreter. I learned to trust the M. Grant I find in his works in the same way I learned to mistrust the Doris Kearns Goodwin I found in “Team of Rivals”. Etc.
COMMENT: This really requires a separate post because it is metaphysical in the sense it suggests that there is no reality (facts) separate and apart from the "signifier," or that the signifier somehow interjects him or herself into facts. Of course, this is a legitimate view, and explains much of your post, although I disagree with it. (If I understand your point.) The bottom line is whether there is a reality out there that is separate and apart from our view of it; or whether if there is, whether we can have access to it without somehow infering with it. We can have that discussion. But it seems to me if we are talking seriously about science, or even history, we have to start with the premise that there is something objective to be discovered about the world. Otherwise, why bother. Now, maybe history in particular cannot be meaningful without human interpretations. May the historian necessarily interfers with "the facts of the matter," such that there are no objective facts to be discovered independent of the historian. But again, as with all academic disciplines, don't we have to assume a metaphysical theory that makes our efforts to understand reality meaningful in some objective sense?
If so, then I would suggest not to confuse the subjectivity of interpretations, with the objectivity of historical facts. You are telling us something about human beings, and their motives. This influences all of science, but there are still facts to be learned independent of that subjectivity, and meaningful interpretations to be considered.
________________________________________
Question (my last): what in Richard Carrier’s work prompts his readers to trust him?
COMMENT: I am uncomfortable with all this talk about trust. I do not trust any author independent of the written word, and have learned to assess the merits and objectivity of authors by their presentations alone, even if they have better credentials than I do on the subject they are writing about. I find that in scientific writing, the "truth" subtly emerges, if only in part, as one delves into issues, and understands them, without having to consider whether the author graduated from Harvard or BYU; was a tenured professor, or a postdoc; or is a scientist or a lawyer.