next »

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours
History's Hinge - 'Ain Jalut

[Solomon]

In discussing history, archaeology, myths and legends, we tend to use a variety of terms and arguments which not everyone is agreed on.

Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theorem or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.


Theory
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.


Hypothesis
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.

Evaluating hypotheses

The hypothetico-deductive method demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). (Note that, if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional.)

As an example: someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. Anyone could falsify the hypothesis by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example, provided that one can fairly reliably distinguish the observed black sheep from (say) a goat), and provided that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), finding a black sheep falsifies the "white sheep only" hypothesis. This sort of example probably provides the easiest way to understand the term "hypothesis".

According to Schick and Vaughn (2002), researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

    * Testibility (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
    * Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
    * Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
    * Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
    * Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems

Making sense of oral history

[Solomon]

Some Thoughts about Archaeological Proof

When the phrase "archaeological proof" is used it carries a lot of weight. It is as if to say that "archaeological proof" means that the conclusion is certain, that somehow it is written in stone. It is like the commercial that reminds us that four out of five doctors prefer some product. How the evidence has been collected is critical. Archaeology is an experiment that cannot be redone. The trustworthiness and reliability of the researcher in the field is essential for other researchers. You have learned something of this in previous lessons. But after the data is collected, how is it interpreted? Is the archaeologist swayed by bias? What is the nature of archaeological evidence and what can we expect to learn from it? Today we will discuss briefly some cautions about the interpretation of archaeological evidence.

First, while archaeological data might appear to be concrete evidence it is always subject to interpretation. All researchers have things that they like and things that they do not like. Usually someone studies something that they like. We tend to pay more attention to the things we like or hope to find and to overlook things that we do not like or would not expect to find. This is natural and both researcher and reader should be aware of this. We also tend to treat with greater care the things that we like. All of this is to say that interpretation of archaeological evidence will be influenced by one's biases. Be on the lookout for this in others and in yourself!

Second, we cannot expect too much from archaeology. While at times concrete, definitive proof that needs no interpretation is discovered, more often that is not the case. Archaeological evidence is often not absolute, but relative. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important, however, is that we frequently do not have all of the evidence. Do you know how many sites are unexcavated? And even at a given site, who would dare to make bold claims until further research was done? The best that can be done is to reconstruct probable interpretations. These need to be carefully checked with all of the available written evidence while further field work is done.

Third, the interpreter must use strict rules of logic while dealing with evidence. For instance an important principle to remember is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something has not been found, that is not to say that it will not be found. The absence of evidence is obviously a problem, particularly in archaeology. But it is only crucial when it can be proven that one has no hope of ever finding what one is lacking. On the other hand, beware of arguments that are intentionally based on a lack of evidence. That is, some people claim that the fact that there is no evidence proves something. This is called an argument from silence. It must be rejected for lack of evidence. There are a number of rules of logic that apply in a simple way to the interpretation of data. The above are a few common examples.

Fourth, archaeology deals with material answers for questions of chronology. But what does archaeological evidence tells us about dating? Very careful rules of logic have to be applied when interpreting evidence to avoid falling into some big mistakes in dating and interpretation. For instance, the latest dateable item at a particular surface level provides the earliest possible date for that level, assuming that the late item was not deposited at a later date. For example, if coins were found in a sealed layer dating from the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that layer must date from the thirteenth century or later. This is not definitive proof, however, that that particular layer dates as early as the thirteenth century. The principle of terminus post quem is that the find of the latest date provides the earliest possible date for a level. Archaeological evidence can also provide a date before which something else must have happened. This is called the terminus ante quem. If layers are sealed by a layer that is dated without question, then everything beneath that dated layer must be earlier. These are two important concepts that are used for establishing the relative chronology of a site. You can imagine how tricky interpretation of data must be and yet chronology is critical for understanding the story of the past.

So the next time you hear someone say that he or she has archaeological proof, be cautious. Remember everything is subject to interpretation. All researchers are biased. We know far less than what has been lost to us through time and what yet needs to be discovered. Socrates, a Greek philosopher, said that the more he learned, the less he felt he knew. That is not to say that we should not be convinced by evidence. There is great reason for certainty, but greater reason and need for humility. Finally, always think clearly and use careful rules of logic.

[moneypenny]

We tend to pay more attention to the things we like or hope to find and to overlook things that we do not like or would not expect to find. This is natural and both researcher and reader should be aware of this.

For instance an important principle to remember is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something has not been found, that is not to say that it will not be found.

These posts are so packed with profound ideas in a very succinct form, that I, for one, am in awe.   Yes, the main problem in all of this is the fact that we are human.  Scientists learn the Scientific Method early in school, and vow to abide by it, but they are human, and as Solomon has pointed out, it is very hard to accept answers that don't meet with either your expectations or your bias.  Truly non-prejudiced views are actually rare.
  So many reasons to report skewed results, or to actually pre-judge, and make the results meet your pre-judgement.   For instance, a researcher who wants a shipwreck to be a rich Spanish galleon, so searches for the clues that will meet those expectations, even ignoring clues that might show differently, and supposing things that haven't been proven, such as "I believe this ship is sheathed in a protective covering that the Spanish used", and stating this before any lab examination.  Just having an expert make a casual statement like that turns into rumor that grows among the working crew.
 

And even at a given site, who would dare to make bold claims until further research was done? The best that can be done is to reconstruct probable interpretations. These need to be carefully checked with all of the available written evidence while further field work is done.

   I recently posted about the Olmec tablets that were found, the oldest writing in ancient Mesoamerica, and learned that long ago the "experts" had decided that the Mayans were the oldest Mesoamerican culture, discounting the Olmec.  And it wasn't until the early 1900's that they changed this theory.
Yes, it is difficult, and when researching, I am constantly asking myself, "could there be another interpretation?", especially when I am getting comfortable with an interpretation that I like and hope to be the correct one.
  Thank you Solomon for these words of wisdom.
moneypenny

[Solomon]

Thanks Moneypenny, for your appreciation of what I think is perhaps the single most important subject in History Hunters. We need common ground for our discussions and I hope that this thread helps to provide it.

You are right: science cannot be better than the scientists.

Solomon

[Solomon]

I think that... is an opinion and as such, as long as it is held honestly, then the view expressed is honest, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in-between.

It is therefore good when making claims to offer the appropriate qualification. Anything along the lines of In my opinion... and I think that... is clearly a personal position and not masquerading as anything else.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with any belief, because it is often used to cover a matter of faith and faith, is, by definition, blind. When I say that I believe... it is shorthand for I have reason to believe and this allows readers to question my belief: what are the reasons? If, on the other hand, a statement is made as a matter of faith, then no questioning is allowed: it just is.

A problem arises, though, when a matter of faith is present as fact. "Aliens live amongst us" and that sort of thing. This happens more in dealing with religious subjects and is how children come to hold as true a whole range of myths and unsubstantiated beliefs.

My own area of special interest is the period leading up to the First and Second Jewish Revolts and their aftermath. In this, one collides continually with mutton dressed as lamb - faith pretending to be historicity. Some religions made a bad habit of persecuting and even killing those who tried to inject some reason in their theological beliefs. If there is faith, then these murderous liars are damned. I therefore have little patience with those promoting mythology as history.

We meet similar faith-based attempts to argue in historical and archaeological subjects. India right now is in the grip of perverting science to make a case for the historical supremacy of religion. In that particular case, I can see a link directly to the Axis powers of the Second World War and their fascist philosophy. This same belief system also permeated the Arab world and we are in armed combat with it now.

You see, this is not an obscure, academic debate of no relevance to the wide world. Intellectual honesty and rigour are always important. Cowardice has a price, even - especially - when intellectual.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,
a most profound post. History and all the other sciences should be based in hard fact.
Religion is based on belief not often supported by hard fact. Religion often subverts History, as we have seen from the examples you offered, and if we cannot learn the lessons we are bound to repeat the mistakes. Common sense is not common, in our age or any that have preceded.
Cheers,
Doc

[Solomon]

Thank you, Doc.

This prompts me to start a thread on how fascism of the 1930s was exported by France into Arabia and how it remains embedded in the political system there, causing conflict to this day; and how Nazi sympathisers in India during WW2 came to political prominence in modern times and are now, as I said, perverting archaeology to rewrite history in support of their supremacy claims.

Our subject - revealing the treasures of history - is always a target of the extremists and their propagandists. A bit like the Indiana Jones stories. 

Sol

[Diving Doc]

"Our subject - revealing the treasures of history - is always a target of the extremists and their propagandists. A bit like the Indiana Jones stories." LOL.
It is funny to think of it like that but it is also the unvarnished truth as well.

Cheers,
Doc

[Administration]

'The media' is the most popular industry for new entrants these days. Maybe this is part of the culture of celebrity, where one is famous only for being famous. But at the same time, journalists are now among the most disbelieved. Maybe standards are slipping and if so, perhaps this is why.

Situation:
Somebody - A - says something.

Honest report:
"A said something."

No arguing with that, is there? It is incontrovertible.

Dishonest report:
"Something."

In this case, no qualification is given and instead, the something is repeated as if true. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to the point. In this case, the journalist is merely repeating something that was said by A. This type of reporting is mere gossip, repeating what others have said without regard to the veracity of the statement.

Reporting such as this is also common to the relating of history and that includes treasure hunts. It is one reason why relying on books on a subject, which are usually no more than the opinion of the author, is dangerous. Reading something by somebody is not, in itself, reliable evidence and it rarely provides proof.

Somebody reads a magazine piece - say that somebody claims something - and then reports on what they have read. The honest report is: "The magazine reports something." The less than honest report says: "Something."

History, archaeology and treasure hunting run into mythology regularly. We have a long and detailed account of this in the Oak Island thread. Time and again, the problem is one of people repeating gossip as if it were to be true. When the historian, researcher or investigator questions such a statement, the common responses are:
"Prove it's not true."
"The author is a respected person and should be believed."
"You're just a sceptic."
"Who are you to not believe me".
"You calling me a liar?"
And all that sort of nonsense.

Often, of course, the reporter making an unqualified claim is merely lacking a good, professional training. On the other hand and particularly in our field, the unqualified claim is sometimes part of a hoax, or even a fraud. We must always be on our guard, to both report accurately and to not accept the unqualified reports of others.

[Tayopa]

HI: one question, what is truth, the whole absolute, truth ? 

In my short life I have seen an absolute truth by an accredited scientist, archaeologist or what ever accepted as uncontroversial, yet a few years later no longer acceptable, so in this event what is TRUTH?  What IS  a true reference?

What is the status of someone that accepted the former as true and based his future developments & research upon this, only to find that he had based his belief upon a untruth which was  an accepted truth by his peers at that time. 

What can be stated as a  true, proven, reference?   It would seem that "X" in the physical sciences may,  for a bit,  qualify as a truth,  but true truth is actually non-existant in man's present state of learning and development.

I had the unique experience of participating in WW-2 from start to Finish.  (Guadalcanal  on)  I have seen history as I lived it, rewritten.    "It is no longer true history, yet I see many basing their beliefs,  theories, experiments, and historical revelations using these false histories as a base?   

Whole cultural beliefs have evolved from the first using what was considered a truth at that time.  If this is the case what can one use as true references?   

Till Eulenspiegle de La Mancha

p.s. Political Science and propaganda were my favorite  secondary studies  in College.   I know about half truths. implied truths, inferred truths, and out right lies or simply using statistics to prove a  point.  One can prove almost any thing  by manipulated statistics.

[Solomon]

one question, what is truth, the whole absolute, truth ?

That is a question of very little relevance to science and therefore history and archaeology, where a statement should be properly qualified.

I have seen an absolute truth by an accredited scientist, archaeologist or what ever accepted as uncontroversial

I do not think so. This is more likely to be a misunderstanding on your part of what was claimed, as science talks very little, if at all, of absolute truth. Rather, science talks of hypotheses and theory and always: data.  None of these should be affected by controversy, as you suggest.

It seems to me that your approach to study and ours are radically different and the above post of yours goes a long way to explaining how this is. You have made a number of claims that do not match accepted histories, which I think is great, so long as you can argue them cogently, providing the necessary data to support them.

I will not accept unqualified claims and uncorroborated evidence as fact. Not here, or anywhere else, by anybody.

Your claims are connected with a commercial venture. Would you not agree that you have opened yourself to the charge of having a commercial motive in persuading others to accept your arguments? Unqualified and uncorroborated claims made in support of an attempt to gain money from others is the antithesis of what History Hunters stands for. How you do not appear to know this is beyond me.

Solomon

[Sovereign]

Glad that this has since been settled and that we may expect a book to appear.

I believe all sorts of things, some quite outrageous. If I post them here, I will make sure that I preface them properly and add adequate references to the source material.

[Bart]

Great topic, the very heart of History Hunters, and succinct. I believe an in depth study of faith's impact on history could be quite a revelation. (Yes, there is a humorous aspect to that statement, though un-intended for this purpose.) I suspect that mans inhumanity to man may well be defined as faith (how's that for bias?), but the data needs be collected before observation is applied to it. I suspect it would be the 'stickiest' of all topics here.

- Bart

[Diving Doc]

There is really no need for me to add anything but I will. History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely in the name of science for the purpose of personal gain or fame. Yes, mistakes are made inadvertently at times but not usually by objective scientific minds. The very pages of History are being rewritten daily as more data becomes available. We ask that you all join with us in objective debate on the topics posted, that together,  we may all find the truth. We fully expect and intend to defend anything we post, either as fact or opinion, with logic, facts, reference, and hard data. This is not a challenge, it is our mission statement.
Cheers,
Doc

[Sovereign]

History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely in the name of science for the purpose of personal gain or fame.
I hope for more:
History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely.

When not to believe
When somebody tells you something that goes against everything you know and the only supporting evidence is the person who tells you.
Remind you of anyone?

 

[Solomon]

Nice point, Sovereign and yes, History Hunters opposes falsity. (Full stop.)

I also both understand and concur with your second point. Myths that are presented as history are often based on no more than the word of an individual: vicar wandering home from pub meets Nessie - policeman cycling along country lane at midnight sights a flying saucer - hotel guest wakes to see The White Lady - sort of thing. We do our best to distinguish between history and mythology and I do not support the posting here of unsupported claims of a fabulous nature, for they discredit us, our scholarship, our members and our readers.

This is why I openly reserve the right to ban anyone who posts in this manner and, if needed, anyone else who supports such disgraceful behaviour. I would rather have a small and honest forum than one of those huge, busy ones full of garbage.

Solomon

[LaBelleRiviere]

A thouroughly enjoyable thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

[Baja Bush Pilot]

In English common law, from which most of our laws derive (my apologies, Tayopa.  My dealings with Mexican law convince me they derived from a cross between Vulcan law and the Code of the Pirates.. hope you have a sense of humor), the rules of evidence are very complex.  But something I think should be considered in the context of history are standards of proof. 

Beyond a shadow of a doubt:  It doesn't exist.  In the context of law, nothing can ever be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Beyond a reasonable doubt:  I wouldn't even begin to start listing definitions of reasonable doubt, but it has to strong enough evidence to send someone to their death.  It's a very convincing standard.  It's the standard to which jurors are held to convict someone of a crime.

Preponderance of the evidence: The evidence favors one side more than the others.  51%.  The standard used to decide civil matters in court.

Probable cause:  It is probably true.  Enough evidence to make an arrest or a search, or get a warrant in criminal cases.

Some evidence:  Reason to look closer for probable cause.

If you were to use the above guidelines, what standard would historians use to state something as a fact?

[Bart]

The American Historical Assn. has adopted the following (excerpts) as their Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct as to how an historian should conduct themselves.

Bart

1. The Profession of History

   History is the never-ending process whereby people seek to understand the past and its many meanings. The institutional and intellectual forms of history?s dialogue with the past have changed enormously over time, but the dialogue itself has been part of the human experience for millennia. We all interpret and narrate the past, which is to say that we all participate in making history. It is among our most fundamental tools for understanding ourselves and the world around us.

   Professional historians benefit enormously from this shared human fascination for the past. Few fields are more accessible or engaging to members of the public. Individuals from all backgrounds have a stake in how the past is interpreted, for it cuts to the very heart of their identities and world views. This is why history can evoke such passion and controversy in the public realm. All manner of people can and do produce good history. Professional historians are wise to remember that they will never have a monopoly on their own discipline, and that this is much more a strength than a weakness. The openness of the discipline is among its most attractive features, perennially renewing it and making it relevant to new constituencies.

   What, then, distinguishes a professional historian from everyone else? Membership in this profession is defined by self-conscious identification with a community of historians who are collectively engaged in investigating and interpreting the past as a matter of disciplined learned practice. Historians work in an extraordinary range of settings: in museums and libraries and government agencies, in schools and academic institutions, in corporations and non-profit organizations. Some earn their living primarily from employment related to the past; some practice history while supporting themselves in other ways. Whatever the venue in which they work, though, professional historians share certain core values that guide their activities and inform their judgments as they seek to enrich our collective understanding of the past. These shared values for conducting and assessing research, developing and evaluating interpretations, communicating new knowledge, navigating ethical dilemmas, and, not least, telling stories about the past, define the professional practice of history.

2. Shared Values of Historians

   Historians strive constantly to improve our collective understanding of the past through a complex process of critical dialogue?with each other, with the wider public, and with the historical record?in which we explore former lives and worlds in search of answers to the most compelling questions of our own time and place.

   Historians cannot successfully do this work without mutual trust and respect. By practicing their craft with integrity, historians acquire a reputation for trustworthiness that is arguably their single most precious professional asset. The trust and respect both of one?s peers and of the public at large are among the greatest and most hard-won achievements that any historian can attain. It is foolish indeed to put them at risk.

   Although historians disagree with each other about many things, they do know what they trust and respect in each other?s work. All historians believe in honoring the integrity of the historical record. They do not fabricate evidence. Forgery and fraud violate the most basic foundations on which historians construct their interpretations of the past. An undetected counterfeit undermines not just the historical arguments of the forger, but all subsequent scholarship that relies on the forger?s work. Those who invent, alter, remove, or destroy evidence make it difficult for any serious historian ever wholly to trust their work again.

   We honor the historical record, but understand that its interpretation constantly evolves as historians analyze primary documents in light of the ever-expanding body of secondary literature that places those documents in a larger context. By ?documents,? historians typically mean all forms of evidence?not just written texts, but artifacts, images, statistics, oral recollections, the built and natural environment, and many other things?that have survived as records of former times. By ?secondary literature,? we typically mean all subsequent interpretations of those former times based on the evidence contained in primary documents. This distinction between primary and secondary sources is among the most fundamental that historians make. Drawing the boundary between them is a good deal more complicated than it might seem, since determining whether a document is primary or secondary largely depends on the questions one asks of it. At the most basic level, though, the professional practice of history means respecting the integrity of primary and secondary sources while subjecting them to critical scrutiny and contributing in a fair-minded way to ongoing scholarly and public debates over what those sources tell us about the past.

   Honoring the historical record also means leaving a clear trail for subsequent historians to follow. This is why scholarly apparatus in the form of bibliographies and annotations (and associated institutional repositories like libraries, archives, and museums) is so essential to the professional practice of history. Such apparatus is valuable for many reasons. It enables other historians to retrace the steps in an argument to make sure those steps are justified by the sources. Apparatus often evaluates evidence to indicate gaps in the historical record that might cast doubt on a given interpretation. Knowing that trust is ultimately more important than winning a debate for the wrong reasons, professional historians are as interested in defining the limits and uncertainties of their own arguments as they are in persuading others that those arguments are correct. Finally, the trail of evidence left by any single work of history becomes a key starting point for subsequent investigations of the same subject, and thus makes a critical contribution to our collective capacity to ask and answer new questions about the past. For all these reasons, historians pride themselves on the accuracy with which they use and document sources. The sloppier their apparatus, the harder it is for other historians to trust their work.

   The trail of evidence in bibliographies, notes, museum catalogs, databases, and other forms of scholarly apparatus is crucial not just for documenting the primary sources on which a work of history depends, but the secondary sources as well. Practicing history with integrity means acknowledging one?s debts to the work of other historians. To copy the work of another and claim it for one?s own is plagiarism?an act historians abhor. Plagiarism violates the historical record by failing to reveal the secondary sources that have contributed to a given line of argument. It is a form of fraud, and betrays the trust on which the historical profession depends. Much more will be said about it later in this Statement on Standards.

   Among the core principles of the historical profession that can seem counterintuitive to non-historians is the conviction, very widely if not universally shared among historians since the nineteenth century, that practicing history with integrity does not mean being neutral or having no point of view. Every work of history articulates a particular, limited perspective on the past. Historians hold this view not because they believe that all interpretations are equally valid, or that nothing can ever be known about the past, or that facts do not matter. Quite the contrary. History would be pointless if such claims were true, since its most basic premise is that within certain limits we can indeed know and make sense of past worlds and former times that now exist only as remembered traces in the present. But the very nature of our discipline means that historians also understand that all knowledge is situated in time and place, that all interpretations express a point of view, and that no mortal mind can ever aspire to omniscience. Because the record of the past is so fragmentary, absolute historical knowledge is denied us.

   Furthermore, the different peoples whose past lives we seek to understand held views of their lives that were often very different from each other?and from our own. Doing justice to those views means to some extent trying (never wholly successfully) to see their worlds through their eyes. This is especially true when people in the past disagreed or came into conflict with each other, since any adequate understanding of their world must somehow encompass their disagreements and competing points of view within a broader context. Multiple, conflicting perspectives are among the truths of history. No single objective or universal account could ever put an end to this endless creative dialogue within and between the past and the present.

   What is true of history is also true of historians. Everyone who comes to the study of history brings with them a host of identities, experiences, and interests that cannot help but affect the questions they ask of the past and the answers they wish to know. When applied with integrity and self-critical fair-mindedness, the political, social, and religious beliefs of historians can appropriately inform their historical practice. Because the questions we ask profoundly shape everything we do?the topics we investigate, the evidence we gather, the arguments we construct, the stories we tell?it is inevitable that different historians will produce different histories.

   For this reason, historians often disagree and argue with each other. That historians can sometimes differ quite vehemently not just about interpretations but even about the basic facts of what happened in the past is sometimes troubling to non-historians, especially if they imagine that history consists of a universally agreed-upon accounting of stable facts and known certainties. But universal agreement is not a condition to which historians typically aspire. Instead, we understand that interpretive disagreements are vital to the creative ferment of our profession, and can in fact contribute to some of our most original and valuable insights.

   Frustrating as these disagreements and uncertainties may be even for historians, they are an irreducible feature of the discipline. In contesting each other?s interpretations, professional historians recognize that the resulting disagreements can deepen and enrich historical understanding by generating new questions, new arguments, and new lines of investigation. This crucial insight underpins some of the most important shared values that define the professional conduct of historians. They believe in vigorous debate, but they also believe in civility. They rely on their own perspectives as they probe the past for meaning, but they also subject those perspectives to critical scrutiny by testing them against the views of others.

   Historians celebrate intellectual communities governed by mutual respect and constructive criticism. The preeminent value of such communities is reasoned discourse?the continuous colloquy among historians holding diverse points of view who learn from each other as they pursue topics of mutual interest. A commitment to such discourse?balancing fair and honest criticism with tolerance and openness to different ideas?makes possible the fruitful exchange of views, opinions, and knowledge.

   This being the case, it is worth repeating that a great many dilemmas associated with the professional practice of history can be resolved by returning to the core values that the preceding paragraphs have sought to sketch. Historians should practice their craft with integrity. They should honor the historical record. They should document their sources. They should acknowledge their debts to the work of other scholars. They should respect and welcome divergent points of view even as they argue and subject those views to critical scrutiny. They should remember that our collective enterprise depends on mutual trust. And they should never betray that trust.

3. Scholarship

   Scholarship?the discovery, exchange, interpretation, and presentation of information about the past?is basic to the professional practice of history. It depends on the collection and preservation of historical documents, artifacts, and other source materials in a variety of institutional settings ranging from libraries to archives to museums to government agencies to private organizations. Historians are committed to protecting significant historical evidence wherever it resides. Scholarship likewise depends on the open dissemination of historical knowledge via many different channels of communication: books, articles, classrooms, exhibits, films, historic sites, museums, legal memoranda, testimony, and many other ways. The free exchange of information about the past is dear to historians.

   Professional integrity in the practice of history requires awareness of one?s own biases and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead. Historians should document their findings and be prepared to make available their sources, evidence, and data, including any documentation they develop through interviews. Historians should not misrepresent their sources. They should report their findings as accurately as possible and not omit evidence that runs counter to their own interpretation. They should not commit plagiarism. They should oppose false or erroneous use of evidence, along with any efforts to ignore or conceal such false or erroneous use.

   Historians should acknowledge the receipt of any financial support, sponsorship, or unique privileges (including special access to research material) related to their research, especially when such privileges could bias their research findings. They should always acknowledge assistance received from colleagues, students, research assistants, and others, and give due credit to collaborators.

   Historians should work to preserve the historical record, and support institutions that perform this crucial service. Historians favor free, open, equal, and nondiscriminatory access to archival, library, and museum collections wherever possible. They should be careful to avoid any actions that might prejudice access for future historians. Although they recognize the legitimacy of restricting access to some sources for national security, proprietary, and privacy reasons, they have a professional interest in opposing unnecessary restrictions whenever appropriate.

   Historians sometimes appropriately agree to restrictive conditions about the use of particular sources. Certain kinds of research, certain forms of employment, and certain techniques (for instance, in conducting oral history interviews) sometimes entail promises about what a historian will and will not do with the resulting knowledge. Historians should honor all such promises. They should respect the confidentiality of clients, students, employers, and others with whom they have a professional relationship. At much as possible, though, they should also strive to serve the historical profession?s preference for open access to, and public discussion of, the historical record. They should define any confidentiality requirements before their research begins, and give public notice of any conditions or rules that may affect the content of their work.

4. Plagiarism

   The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author?s work, and the presentation of it as one?s own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It seriously undermines the credibility of the plagiarist, and can do irreparable harm to a historian?s career.

   In addition to the harm that plagiarism does to the pursuit of truth, it can also be an offense against the literary rights of the original author and the property rights of the copyright owner. Detection can therefore result not only in sanctions (such as dismissal from a graduate program, denial of promotion, or termination of employment) but in legal action as well. As a practical matter, plagiarism between scholars rarely goes to court, in part because legal concepts, such as infringement of copyright, are narrower than ethical standards that guide professional conduct. The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars.

   Plagiarism includes more subtle abuses than simply expropriating the exact wording of another author without attribution. Plagiarism can also include the limited borrowing, without sufficient attribution, of another person?s distinctive and significant research findings or interpretations. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative, and thus in some contexts?such as textbooks, encyclopedia articles, broad syntheses, and certain forms of public presentation?the form of attribution, and the permissible extent of dependence on prior scholarship, citation, and other forms of attribution will differ from what is expected in more limited monographs. As knowledge is disseminated to a wide public, it loses some of its personal reference. What belongs to whom becomes less distinct. But even in textbooks a historian should acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common understanding of the profession. Similarly, while some forms of historical work do not lend themselves to explicit attribution (e.g., films and exhibitions), every effort should be made to give due credit to scholarship informing such work.

   Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another?s language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without subsequent attribution. Borrowing unexamined primary source references from a secondary work without citing that work is likewise inappropriate. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.

   No matter what the context, the best professional practice for avoiding a charge of plagiarism is always to be explicit, thorough, and generous in acknowledging one?s intellectual debts.

   All who participate in the community of inquiry, as amateurs or as professionals, as students or as established historians, have an obligation to oppose deception. This obligation bears with special weight on teachers of graduate seminars. They are critical in shaping a young historian?s perception of the ethics of scholarship. It is therefore incumbent on graduate teachers to seek opportunities for making the seminar also a workshop in scholarly integrity. After leaving graduate school, every historian will have to depend primarily on vigilant self-criticism. Throughout our lives none of us can cease to question the claims to originality that our work makes and the sort of credit it grants to others.

   The first line of defense against plagiarism is the formation of work habits that protect a scholar from plagiarism. The plagiarist?s standard defense?that he or she was misled by hastily taken and imperfect notes?is plausible only in the context of a wider tolerance of shoddy work. A basic rule of good note-taking requires every researcher to distinguish scrupulously between exact quotation and paraphrase.

   The second line of defense against plagiarism is organized and punitive. Every institution that includes or represents a body of scholars has an obligation to establish procedures designed to clarify and uphold their ethical standards. Every institution that employs historians bears an especially critical responsibility to maintain the integrity and reputation of its staff. This applies to government agencies, corporations, publishing firms, and public service organizations such as museums and libraries, as surely as it does to educational facilities. Usually, it is the employing institution that is expected to investigate charges of plagiarism promptly and impartially and to invoke appropriate sanctions when the charges are sustained. Penalties for scholarly misconduct should vary according to the seriousness of the offense, and the protections of due process should always apply. A persistent pattern of deception may justify public disclosure or even termination of a career; some scattered misappropriations may warrant a formal reprimand.

   All historians share responsibility for defending high standards of intellectual integrity. When appraising manuscripts for publication, reviewing books, or evaluating peers for placement, promotion, and tenure, scholars must evaluate the honesty and reliability with which the historian uses primary and secondary source materials. Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and public discussion of academic deception.

5. Teaching

   Teaching is basic to the practice of history. It occurs in many venues: not just classrooms, but museums and historic sites, documentaries and textbooks, newspaper articles, web sites, and popular histories. In its broadest definition, teaching involves the transmission of historical knowledge to people who do not yet have such knowledge. Whether it occurs in the classroom or the public realm, it performs the essential work of assuring that the past remains a part of living memory in the present.

   Good teaching entails accuracy and rigor in communicating factual information, and strives always to place such information in context to convey its larger significance. Integrity in teaching means presenting competing interpretations with fairness and intellectual honesty. Doing so can support one of the most important goals of teaching: exciting the interest of those who are encountering a new historical topic for the first time, leading them toward the insight that history is a process of living inquiry, not an inert collection of accepted facts.

   The political, social, and religious beliefs of history teachers necessarily inform their work, but the right of the teacher to hold and express such convictions can never justify falsification, misrepresentation, or concealment, or the persistent intrusion of material unrelated to the subject of the course. Furthermore, teachers should be mindful that students and other audience members have the right to disagree with a given interpretation or point of view. Students should be made aware of multiple causes and varying interpretations. Within the bounds of the historical topic being studied, the free expression of legitimate differences of opinion should always be a goal. Teachers should judge students? work on merit alone.

   Course offerings, textbooks, and public history presentations should address the diversity of human experience, recognizing that historical accuracy requires attention both to individual and cultural similarities and differences and to the larger global and historical context within which societies have evolved. The American Historical Association is on record as encouraging educational and public history activities to counter harassment and discrimination on campuses and in the public realm. It encourages administrators to speak out vigorously against such incidents. At the same time, the Association disapproves of efforts to limit or punish free speech. We condemn the violation of First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as the harassment and vilification to which individuals have sometimes been subjected for exercising these rights.

6. History in the Public Realm

   Because interpreting the past is so vital to democratic debate and civic life in the public realm, historians regularly have the opportunity to discuss the implications of their knowledge for concerns and controversies in the present?including present controversies about past events. It is one of the privileges of our profession to share historical insights and interpretations with a wider public, wherever the locus of our employment. We should welcome the chance to do so, and the institutions that employ historians should recognize the importance of this aspect of our work. Historians should not be subject to institutional or professional penalties for their beliefs and activities, provided they do not misrepresent themselves as speaking for their institutions or their professional organizations when they are not authorized to do so.

   Practicing history in the public realm presents important challenges, for when historians communicate with a wider public, they must represent not just a particular interpretation or body of facts, but the best practices of the discipline of history itself. This means they must inevitably walk a tightrope in balancing their desire to present a particular point of view with their responsibility to uphold the standards and values that underpin their professional authority as historians. This challenge can be especially complex for public historians, whose daily working lives frequently require multiple levels of accountability, and for historians working in advocacy roles.

   Public discussions of complex historical questions inevitably translate and simplify many technical details associated with those questions, while at the same time suggesting at least some of the associated complexities and divergent points of view. While it is perfectly acceptable for historians to share their own perspectives with the public, they should also strive to demonstrate how the historical profession links evidence with arguments to build fair-minded, nuanced, and responsible interpretations of the past. The desire to score points as an advocate should never tempt a historian to misrepresent the historical record or the critical methods that the profession uses to interpret that record.

   Historians who work in government, corporate, and nonprofit institutions, as well as those occasionally entering public arenas as political advisers, expert witnesses, public intellectuals, consultants, legislative witnesses, journalists, or commentators, may face a choice of priorities between professionalism and partisanship. They may want to prepare themselves by seeking advice from other experienced professionals. As historians, they must be sensitive to the complexities of history, the diversity of historical interpretations, and the limits as well as the strengths of their own points of view and experiences and of the discipline itself. In such situations, historians must use sources, including the work of other scholars, with great care and should always be prepared to explain the methods and assumptions in their research; the relations between evidence and interpretation; and alternative interpretations of the subjects they address.

8. Reputation and Trust

   Historians are obligated to present their credentials accurately and honestly in all contexts. They should take care not to misrepresent their qualifications in resumes, applications, or the public record. They should apply the same rigor and integrity in describing their own accomplishments as their profession applies to the historical record itself.

   The status of a book, article, or other publication that is still in the production pipeline is often an important piece of information for search committees, tenure/promotion review committees, and fellowship committees. Yet the profession has no standardized terminology for works in progress, often rendering their status unclear. The AHA suggests the following lexicon.

   ?In Press?: the manuscript is fully copyedited and out of the author?s hands. It is in the final stages of the production process.

   ?Forthcoming?: a completed manuscript has been accepted by a press or journal.

   ?Under contract to . . .?: a press and an author have signed a contract for a book in progress, but the final manuscript has not yet been submitted.

   ?Submitted? or ?under consideration?: the book or article has been submitted to a press or journal, but there is as yet no contract or agreement to publish.

   Historians should not list among the completed achievements on their resumes degrees or honors they have never earned, jobs they have never held, articles or books they have never written or published, or any comparable misrepresentations of their creative or professional work.

   Historians should be mindful of any conflicts of interest that may arise in the course of their professional duties. A conflict of interest arises when an individual?s personal interest or bias could compromise (or appear to compromise) his or her ability to act in accordance with professional obligations. Historians frequently encounter such situations as participants in some form of peer review?for example, reviewing grant applications, vetting manuscripts for publication, evaluating annual meeting program proposals, or selecting prize or award recipients. Historians should identify and, where appropriate, recuse themselves from any decisions or other actions in which a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof arises; they should avoid situations in which they may benefit or appear to benefit financially at the expense of their professional obligations. An individual should normally refuse to participate in the formal review of work by anyone for whom he or she feels a sense of personal obligation, competition, or enmity.

http://www.historians.org/pubs/Free/ProfessionalStandards.cfm

[Administration]

Most worthwhile post, Bart.

Solomon:
We do our best to distinguish between history and mythology and I do not support the posting here of unsupported claims of a fabulous nature, for they discredit us, our scholarship, our members and our readers.

The American Historical Assn.:
Historians cannot successfully do this work without mutual trust and respect. By practicing their craft with integrity, historians acquire a reputation for trustworthiness that is arguably their single most precious professional asset. The trust and respect both of one?s peers and of the public at large are among the greatest and most hard-won achievements that any historian can attain. It is foolish indeed to put them at risk.

Exactly and that is one good reason why we are so tough on what is expressed here. This is not a public forum, owned by a public company, such as Yahoo. History Hunters is a private organisation with standards defined clearly.

We honor the historical record, but understand that its interpretation constantly evolves as historians analyze primary documents in light of the ever-expanding body of secondary literature that places those documents in a larger context. By ?documents,? historians typically mean all forms of evidence?not just written texts, but artifacts, images, statistics, oral recollections, the built and natural environment, and many other things?that have survived as records of former times.

Providing reliable data on the past, beyond primary historical sources, is the role of archaeology. History Hunters is active in this field for that reason.

Secondary documents should not be regarded as the opinion of others. We warn regularly of the danger in accepting the opinions of others as reliable fact. Students should not confuse research into primary sources with books about their subject: such confusion is often the starting point of modern mythological pretence.

Among the core principles of the historical profession that can seem counterintuitive to non-historians is the conviction, very widely if not universally shared among historians since the nineteenth century, that practicing history with integrity does not mean being neutral or having no point of view.

It is not possible to be entirely neutral in describing human events. As it is rarely - if ever - possible to present all the reliable data for a subject, the selection of data must be biased. This is not an excuse to pretend that opinion is fact, or to omit relevant facts in order to skew the picture. The best lies are always factually correct: the lie is in the 'spin' - ignoring other data in order to misrepresent.

[Tayopa]

Good morning HH member's / readers:  I am pleased to see this being carried further and  developed..  I will still stand by my post #9, while acknowledging Solomon as being quite correct in a perfect Scientific  community, which we do not have  -  and my respected friend. 

In the physical world we still do not  have a true understanding of our own galaxy, let alone the universe.  We have evolved theories which hold up to our present standards and explanations,  but in themselves may not be even close to the ultimate truth, so?

Which, if any,  do you follow,  Einstein's, String, Holistic, etc. theories or?  What will be tomorrow's truth, and how will it negate major portions of present beliefs / religions?

Many of todays sciences, while extremely admirable, basically honest, and fascinating, are close to being a Religion in any sense of the word.  They can, and will be, fiercely defended from a change  by many a well intentioned  Scientist or Amateur by quoting past references  and studies.  In fact, to publish a controversial paper almost requires one to be in the acknowledged clique of what ever science you are addressing, "and" in basic agreement with their 'present" accepted beliefs."

A crude example is to "try to have an alternate or conflicting theory on Cancer published in one the established medical journals".  Or for that matter,  try to practice alternate Cancer treatments in a hospital.   Unless you are practicing under the present thoughts and guidelines forget it. This goes for funded research also. They frankly are not interested, since they obviously know whatever  is to be known now, so there cannot be another explanation.

How many times in my lifetime have I seen published data on the common chicken egg regarding it's food and health value, changed  diametrically.  I agree, we should always be ready to accept changes as our  knowledge evolves, but this only further confirms my statement that we do not know the ultimate truth, even on the lowly egg.

Most top scientists, Theologens, Archaeologists , Historians,  etc. that have spent their lives reaching the peak in their profession  do not willingly  bow to a younger idea, theory, or competitor.   In fact it is not unknown for professional jealousy to destroy the careers of competitors, or those of apposing views..


Doc: May I formally request you to be my second?

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Bart]

" Doc: May I formally request you to be my second? " 

Don Jose, if I am correct, your opponent has the choice of weapons. My guess is that he will choose the jewelled sword or the keyboard. 

You have made some valid points in regard to the realities of human nature. I think we would all agree that there must be a gold standard to reach for, though it is not always achieved. It is a wonderful occurrence when it does happen, and something to be admired and emulated. The struggle continues, and always will, it is who we are. How dull would it be to have nothing to strive for? To 'arrive' would mean the end of purpose, I suspect, and thus, the end. I hope we are never faced with finding out if that is true.

Bart

[Solomon]

Don Jose,

Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith. In my view, science is less blind and more open to argument.


Galileo Galilei
Galileo Galilei (15 February 1564 ? 8 January 1642) was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who is closely associated with the scientific revolution.

Galileo affair
The Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. In reaction, many maintained that the motion of the Earth and immobility of the Sun were heretical, as they contradicted some accounts given in the Bible as understood at that time. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.

Personally, in any conflict between science and faith, I will side with the scientists, no matter that they may be flawed.

Cheers!
Solomon

[Tayopa]

Good evening my esteemed friends Bart and Solomon;
 
First, Solomon I cannot honestly disagree with you on the ongoing & perpetual conflict between the theology of Science and the theology of Religion.  Yes, I realize the seemingly incongruity in using the word "theology" for both, but in many ways they are similar, especially when we divert pure science to Archaeology.  An archaeologist must rely upon the life works of others as his basis, in most cases rightly so, but in others? 

This conveys a belief in the person who has contributed accepted works in the development of the particular point in question. To accept this is perhaps as definitive a theological process as accepting a  religious statement,  belief in your source,   even if later proved to be untrue, or even being incapable of proof of any kind.

So back to the definition of a "truth".  What is it?  Is it a simple statement that is repeatable  and fits into other workable "truths" which in themselves are usable in our present state of development, but not necessarily  true?   

Bart, I prefer sabres having been light trained in their usage as an aspiring Knight or Caballero.  Sigh, the most wonderful present that I ever received as a kiddie was a collection which included The Illiad.  Those were the days of lovely visions when I could easily vanquish the most worthy of foes and take fair Helen for myself  - yes, those were my formative days.   I would / will not share my personal trophies  even with you BART, Solomon perhaps, stilll......heheh...

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Tayopa]

HI: Isn' t there "anyone" that will come to my defense and back me up? I am sure that Solomon and Bart are about to sink me with  unfortunately logical disputes and data. sigh

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Bart]

Don Jose;

   Far from 'sinking' you, I agreed with the general aspects of your assertions.

You state:
" In the physical world we still do not  have a true understanding of our own galaxy, let alone the universe.  We have evolved theories which hold up to our present standards and explanations,  but in themselves may not be even close to the ultimate truth, so? "

A complete, or total understanding of many things is not here, I believe each side in it's own way agrees to that. Many scientific explanations are evolving, both sides have agreed to that also. But science is to be commended, in my view, for it's willingness to understand and disseminate knowledge on many a subject. Each subject is analyzed clinically, that is, separate from other influences, such as religion, as pointed out in the case of 'Galileo vs the RCC, (or Romish Church)', if you will. Many sciences are 'on the road' to providing a better understanding of our world, and have not, nor may ever, arrive at absolute, or ultimate, truth. Our world, in many aspects, is constantly changing. The universe is expanding, magnetic fields fluctuate and shift, sometimes diametrically, so the ultimate absolute is likely never going to happen. It's the nature of the beast that what is true today may well be wrong tomorrow, literally.

What is new, or progressive re: science itself, is that it was willing to take this step away from dogma, superstition, imagination, fear, and all the other scary ideas people use to control each other. I think it is a better world today because of science. In and of itself, yes, science would be categorized as a religion by defintion. Unlike religion though, science realizes for the most part that not all of it's beliefs are absolutes. Unlike religion, it is often willing to re-examine the (it's own) evidence, seek new explanations and possibilities, instead of resting on a dogmatic position. Historically, I will take a 'scientific' explanation over a religious 'interpretation' any day. In religion, you can get any words or text to mean anything you wish, however incorrect or illogical, and never provide validity for any of it.

History shows that the 'science' of religion is fraught with corruptions of every sort. For the most part, I would have to say that religion is  interpretive and unverifiable, one side cannot prove it is true, the other side cannot prove it is untrue. nonetheless, it is constantly changing, as history shows us. Science changes via logical, often observable, obvious, and repeatable (provable) reasons. Stating or choosing to believe one thing over another does not make for good methodology, especially when no explanation of evidence, reason, logic, or 'proof' is offered. Because something cannot be disproven is not proof that it is so. Generally, a science is under one roof, and it's disagreements within don't often cause catastrophic historical changes. I don't think the same can be said of religion.

Which historical track record is to be relied upon more, Science or Religion? Or, put another way, which has benefited mankind more in real and practical ways?

Bart

[Baja Bush Pilot]

Hombre de la Mancha,

I'll certainly back you.  But if it is to be a sword fight, expect me to show up with a gun.  Maybe two guns.  And a friend with two guns.  And you need to have two guns.  Then the other person will have shown up at a gunfight with a sword.  That's always nice.

As for Rules of Evidence, scientists seem to want to exclude hearsay even though some their foundations are based upon what I would consider, at law, to be hearsay.  But I don't see much evidence excluded because it was 'illegally obtained', the most absurd legal rule to ever face reality.  Whereas with religion, I see most presented evidence as hearsay and much scientific evidence excluded for one invented reason or another.

But back to standards of proof.  I still am not sure how much evidence it takes to prove something as fact.  From reading the above, I'm guessing, from my standpoint of scientific ignorance, that it is the standard of proof in a civil action, i.e., 51%, or a preponderance of the evidence.  It certainly doesn't require 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Do historians believe no one from Asia or Africa visited the Americas 2000 years ago and introduced the bow and arrow, fervently enough to put someone to death if the law were to say they had to die if that didn't happen?  It's not necessary to express the absurdity of such a law.  It's just an example.

 

[Tayopa]

HIO BART, Baja:  No concrete disagreement with either of you, or  Solomon.  Just being an obstanante Irishman  hehehh.  Actually, because of pre-med training, I am aligned with science, but even there, true evidence is sometimes  (?)  colored to reflect the mental image of the beholder or presenter.

However as a  kiddie I was raised as a Catholic.  At one time i wanted to go enter the priesthood, but even while I was being primed, I blew it. I asked too many questions which were answered with "this is the devil in you my son, You must believe", yet at the the same time I was being told to question the various gov'ts. or anyone else.

Apparently  they did not see the incongruity of this.  In any event we soon parted ways.

I must say this, more people have been killed and persecuted in the name of religion than anything else.  Even today in Africa and Asia, it continues with an unbelievable  escalation.  I find it hard to believe that a religious thought or practice is enough to have you killed to the extent of literally millions in Africa and Asia today.

Yet, conversely, Religion has been the greatest stabilizing and humanizing force in the world and in advancing science, provided it was in line with  Church teachings.
In essence what I am trying to say is that all evidence  is flavored by the presenter and his/her  agenda.  No-one is perfect other than myself. I can prove this  by the simple law of  "I AM ME" !  Of course my wife has a slightly different opinion.

Watchit, your present judgement is being based upon non-scientific  reasonings  heheheeh.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Bart]

" Apparently  they did not see the incongruity of this. In any event we soon parted ways."

Bless you my son, you are forgiven.

   It is said by those who keep track of such things that war dead for the 20th century exceeds 200 million people. " Approximately 4,126,000,000 people have died during this century from all causes. If man-made megadeaths account for 185 million of them, then one out of every 22 (or 4.5%) human deaths during the 20th Century have been caused by fellow humans. "

   The 21st century should prove interesting as to how that 4.5 % rate will be improved upon. Rhetorical question; Is there a way to stop 'evolution' ? This doesn't say much for 'progress', in my view. The mental illustration they used for the war dead was this - If the average dead man was five foot tall, the dead would circle the Earh more than ten times. Isn't that a lovely thought?

Bart