Do you "believe" in Secular and Humanist History?

[InvisibleBallots]

While the inconsistencies of the New Testament, the Torah/Tanahk, and Church Fathers have been extensively catalogued and debated, other "ancient" writings, generally those in the "humanist" or "classical" tradition, are generally assumed to be historical and factual. To this day college professors who should know better are teaching their students that a blind poet named Homer "wrote" some 700 pages of verse, which was then memorized by poets and passed down generally unaltered for 3 thousand years, and later, "ancient, miraculously preserved" manuscripts were discovered, right at the time it became politically convienient for Greece to have an established history older than the Catholic church. While there is no argument that the Greek civilization goes back to the earliest times of human civilization, we have almost no writing from this time period. Most of the stories we assume are from "ancient" Greece are actually manuscripts of the medival era - and we must believe in thousand year long conspiracies to believe that these writings were left and hidden intact by secret societies of scholars, or miraculously discovered in some monestary after being "hidden" for 1000 years.

Can _anyone_ produce a manuscript of Seutonius, or Herodotus, or Thucydides that is more than 800 years old? Can _anyone_ produce writing from _any_ of these supposedly "ancient" but "historical" characters like Socrates, Plato, or even Julius Caesar? (There have been forged letters supposedly written by Julius Caesar "discovered" every 50 years or so for the last 500 years, just like letters supposedly written by Jesus Christ.)

How much "blind faith" do you need to have to believe what's being taught in history and classics department to this day?

It's time to put away all the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, and Classicism and Humanism and look at the historical evidence with a dispassionate, scientific method.

http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/01098.htm

[DireStrike]

1. Amen. Figuratively speaking.

Sources, sources! My teachers almost always point things like this out. We had a conversation on Homer and how many people probably contributed to his work in my Comparitive Lit class.

It's less important though, with secular history. We don't claim it's the word of god. The ideas are there, and who/when they are attributed to is often unimportant. Not always, but often.

[InvisibleBallots]

2. do we have any manuscripts before 1200 AD?

I wonder if there is any writing that can be physically dated as older than 800 years regarding Socrates or Plato or Homer? Saying that the writings or stories of "Homer" existed before 1200 AD is speculation at best, isn't it? What evidence do we have that _anything_ written by "Homer" is older than 800 years?

[DireStrike]

4. I have no idea...

What about multiple sources referring to history? Can even this be trusted? It's an intriguing field, I guess. Maybe there's some carbon-dated parchment somewhere. I don't have a clue, so that means 99.9% people don't either.

[trotsky]

6. That's the rub, DireStrike.

Carbon dating. Unless this author can show how radioactive dating methods are wrong, he's got a huge hurdle to overcome in casting away history as we know it.

[InvisibleBallots]

9. I think Carbon dating is accurate, obviously

I question that the carbon dating proves what you may think it does. What does carbon dating prove?

The fundies say "carbon 14 dating proves our history correct". They will tell you that C14 dating has been done on manuscripts of the Bible and it proves they are ancient. But of course, they can't provide anything from the actual C14 study, any data, but usually just a website from some "Christian scholar".

And so far, no one who has faith in the classical, humanist, secular mythological history can provide any proof or evidence either, other than essays from "Secular scholars". Notice - I did not at any point claim that C14 dating is inaccurate. As far as I know, it's one of the most reliable dating methods we have.

So? Where is this C14 data that supposedly proves the ancient existence of Homer, Socrates, or Plato? Do you have a link?

[trotsky]

12. I didn't make that claim, now did I?

However, we have carbon dated the Dead Sea Scrolls to somewhere between 200 BCE and 100 CE. (http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/deadsea.html) Many other historical documents have been dated to what is currently taught as their historical timeframe.

May I ask what point you are trying to make?

[InvisibleBallots]

19. the dating for the DSS is a very interesting story

They refused to release anything to the public for years - then David Eisenmann and others basically smuggled out photographs and they were independently translated. They did have C14 dating done, which is mentioned in your link. Unfortunately, they did not allow indepdent researchers to verify the findings. So basically, it's a trust issue, which is very bad science.

There is a whole lot of political controversey over the DSS - I'd suggest reading Eisenman's work on it.

Of course, in any case, the DSS don't reveal much if anything about the supposed ancient classical history.

[InvisibleBallots]

8. as far as I know, the New Testament is older than Homer

I believe we have a copy of a Latin New Testament that has been "dated" to 800 AD - fundie Christians will often say there are writings older than that, but I haven't been able to find any.

I can't find any primary historical evidence of any Homer, or Socrates or Plato for that matter that can be realiable dated as before the Renassaince. In fact, interestingly enough, lots of the famous writers of the Renaissance "discovered" manuscripts of these supposedly "ancient" figures right about the time they were politically fighting the Catholic church and the Pope in Rome. The Renaissance has many, many examples of forgeries, many of them discovered right when they were created, and of course most people say that the Catholic church forged documents all the time. Should I trust the Medicis and Machiavelli over the Catholic institution? I can't see why.

[InvisibleBallots]

43. even Isaac Newton suggested the chronology was wrong

He wrote a work called "Origin of the Monarchies" which suggested that the conventional chronology was incorrect, and had placed many events too far in the past. Newton came up with a "new chronology" as well, pushing forward many dates by 500 years.

I wonder if Isaac Newton was also a Russian nationalists, and making up shit to sell books? :eyes:

[Inland]

3. *ahem* Mohammed was certainly a historical figure.

He had the advantage of being later and in charge of armies, but his existence is a proven fact.

And what's this crap about Homer being "discovered" in an act of political convenience? Sorry, the writings of Homer hisself--yes, the works attributed to the historical personage--were well known to the world when Jesus was being born, and we know that because Virgil was busy writing the sequel.

To demand a "manuscript" from these sources is ridiculous. Do you expect to find Julius Caesar's treatise on the gallic wars in his own hand? If you don't, does that mean that Caesar didn't exist, or Gaul?

"Putting away myths" is a great idea. But denying the existence of Thucydides, or the events of the Peloponessian War, is just another myth.

[InvisibleBallots]

7. so, no one can provide a manuscript then?

Can you provide any primary historical evidence for any one of these claims?

"Mohammed was certainly a historical figure. He had the advantage of being later and in charge of armies, but his existence is a proven fact."

When was this proven? What is the evidence?

"And what's this crap about Homer being "discovered" in an act of political convenience? Sorry, the writings of Homer hisself--yes, the works attributed to the historical personage--were well known to the world when Jesus was being born, and we know that because Virgil was busy writing the sequel."

Really? Do you have any single bit of evidence of this - other than books from the 1300s written between 1000-3000 years after fact? Is there any reason to believe these books were anything more than mythology or fiction? Is there any evidence that these writings existed before the oldest editions that we have? Even perhaps, some convincing clue that they might be? I know that's the conventional wisdom - but then again, the Virgin Birth was accepted as "a proven fact" for 2000 years right?

"To demand a "manuscript" from these sources is ridiculous. Do you expect to find Julius Caesar's treatise on the gallic wars in his own hand? If you don't, does that mean that Caesar didn't exist, or Gaul?"

Nonsense, demaning proof is what science is all about. I have read a number of supposedly ancient stories about Jesus and Julius Caesar. No one denies that the oldest writing we have of these people are manuscripts from less than 1000 years ago, and they tell us fanciful stories about how these documents were secretly copied for some 2000 years - all the while the Catholics were burning all the documents they didn't like and forging new ones, supposedly. So, really, let's see some evidence - ANY evidence.

"But denying the existence of Thucydides, or the events of the Peloponessian War, is just another myth"

When was this "Thucydides"? What's the oldest manuscript supposedly written by him? Were there later editors to "Thucydides" or did he write it all by himself? Who copied this "Thucydides" manuscript over the course of 3000 years?

Lots of lots of righetous indignation from secular and humanist fundies, but not a shred of proof about there supposed "true history"? Sounds just as mythological as the New Testament to me.

[lenidog]

11. I hate to break it to you

but history is not a science. That is why my degrees are arts degrees and not science degrees. We know these manuscripts existed because the oldest ones we have make reference to them. Also we have paper documents older that a thousand years old. Finally yes the Catholic Church has been known to supress documents but they did not burn everything and many of these books were copied in the open by the Catholic church and we also owe the Muslims a great debt for perserving others.

[InvisibleBallots]

20. "history is not a science" - YET

Frankly, history degrees are almost identical to theology degrees. And you are right, the way history is "studied" is not at all scientific. This is changing.

"We know these manuscripts existed because the oldest ones we have make reference to them"

Excuse me? How does one follow the other? I read a fantasy novel called "The Belgaraid" that mentions lots of ancient historical documents. It's 100% fiction. I guess this is an example of the "history" not "science" technique?

"Also we have paper documents older that a thousand years old"

Really? Which ones? What sort of paper lasts for 1000 years? I'd love to see a link.

"Finally yes the Catholic Church has been known to supress documents but they did not burn everything and many of these books were copied in the open by the Catholic church and we also owe the Muslims a great debt for perserving others."

Again, I'd love to see evidence of this. Can you point me to any of these supposedly ancient documents that have been reliable and independently dated to more than 1000 years old?

The link in my original post, about half way down the page, mentions the various dating techniques that are used to determine dates of these documents. Some of the techniques are very scientific and rigorous. Many of the techniques are little more than speculation.

I can imagine how a theologian must feel - after years of college - when he discovers much of what he has been taught is simply false, and much of the rest of it speculation.

I say it's time to dispense with theology and history and get to scientific research.

[Inland]

15. Why, yes, there are plenty of reasons to believe

"these manuscripts" were not entirely fiction. After all, they dug up Troy. There are plenty of sources of the war between Sparta and Athens. We know Syracuse was a Greek colony from archaelogy.

All you are doing is saying that there aren't any primary sources for history, in the sense that all the participants are dead. No shit. For that matter, I can't prove to YOU the existence of the city of Moscow or that the earth is round, not having observed it myself or have any assurance that the person who has isn't inventing it.

Sure, it is possible that 1300 was a year of such amazing creativity and evil that they were able to compose works that were both marvels of art and of forgery. That would require believing more bullshit conspiracies and that the ancients had more smarts than the most gullible of believers.

[InvisibleBallots]

21. "they dug up Troy"

Are you familiar with this? I've read a bit about the "digging at Troy". What did they discover? What sort of methods were used in the excavation?

Do you know the year they "dug up Troy"? Do you know the people who did it?

"All you are doing is saying that there aren't any primary sources for history, in the sense that all the participants are dead. No shit"

Nonsense. You really should read my link, and the works of Fomenko and other scientists that have done work based on his chronology.

"For that matter, I can't prove to YOU the existence of the city of Moscow or that the earth is round, not having observed it myself or have any assurance that the person who has isn't inventing it."

That's just silly. It's quite a strawman argument you have there - but it doesn't relate to anything I've written here or the links I've posted, sorry.

"Sure, it is possible that 1300 was a year of such amazing creativity and evil that they were able to compose works that were both marvels of art and of forgery. That would require believing more bullshit conspiracies and that the ancients had more smarts than the most gullible of believers."

No, YOU are peddling conspiracy theories, not me. If someone writes a fictional novel, political propaganda, or simply inaccurate history, and other people take it as gospel, is that a "conspiracy theory"?

And yes, the 1300s was a year of very amazing creativity, I'd suggest reading more about it!

[Inland]

29. No, I don't know the people who dug up Troy. Not personally.

So I guess they didn't exist either. It's just reductio ad absurdum.

By the way, if you think that 1300 was a year of amazing creativity, on what do you base that opinion? You weren't there. And asserting that would be inconsistent with your own position. After all, about that time would be when Dante would have been writing the Divine Comedy--but for some reason, that there could have been such a person seems beyond possibility, or at least beyond satisfactory proof. Which is it?

The only way this makes any sense is to assume that each age has nothing better to do than pass its own works off as the works of the previous, because men prefer to toil anonymously creating great works of anachronistic fiction.

[InvisibleBallots]

31. I'm sorry, I thought you were being serious?

*You* mentioned the excavation of Troy, and you seemed to imply that this "excavation" proved something or other. So, what does it prove? Have you read about the excavation of Troy? Do you know the name of the person who was in charge of the excavation? Have you read about any of their findings?

"No, I don't know the people who dug up Troy. Not personally. So I guess they didn't exist either. It's just reductio ad absurdum."

Of course, no one said anything about knowing them personally. I suppose I could say that Richard Nixon never existed because I didn't know him personally, but that would be pretty stupid now wouldn't it?

Now, as to Troy, we have a couple of books printed in the 1300s regarding Troy. We have ONE excavation that I know of (do you know of any others?)

So, since you brought up the excavations of Troy as if it proved something, all I ask is the basic facts - who did the excavations? What did they find? Where are they published?

"And asserting that would be inconsistent with your own position. After all, about that time would be when Dante would have been writing the Divine Comedy--but for some reason, that there could have been such a person seems beyond possibility, or at least beyond satisfactory proof. Which is it?"

Actually, no. According to the conventional chronology, Troy was about 3000 years before Dante. So again, are you being serious, or making some sort of joke? Surely you know that Dante is supposedly dated to the mediveal era, while Troy is supposedly from pre-history?

Also, surely we can understand the difference between "discovered" documents and someone like Voltaire, who we have a consisent record of?

Again, if you're not being serious, my apologies...

[lenidog]

10. LOL ! Here I was going to post

But you more or less said it all.:yourock:

[catbert836]

5. Please, can you be a little tolerant?

If what you say is true, then I'm deluding myself. But that's my right. I hope both atheists and theists can at least agree to disagree.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Don't ask me, ask a real classicist

There should be some on DU somewhere. In fact, I know there is, although I can't remember his/her username. Such a person would have the facts about ancient manuscripts. The one classicist I know offline at the moment is out of the country for the next month.

Having dated a classicist in an earlier life, I remember him talking about how some of the poems of Sappho were discovered in Egypt, where they had been used to wrap mummies of animals. This is not surprising, since Egypt had a huge Greek-speaking population at one time.

Whatever the dates of any given Greek or Latin manuscript, philologists (scholars who study the language and provenance of original historical manuscripts) can tell a lot from their style of language. A manuscript may be of relatively recent origin, but still contain very ancient language. The Greek found in Homer or the writings of Plato is more conservative than the Greek of the New Testament era (centuries later) and even less like the Greek of the Byzantine Empire.

It's even been shown that Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him, because "the" Paul had a very distinctive writing style in Greek, and some of the letters, such as the letters to Timothy, are written in an entirely different style.

By the way, I did some Googling for the earliest dates of various classical authors, and the only citations I could find were from evangelical sites. I tried "oldest Greek manuscript" and got pages and pages of theological sites.

[lenidog]

14. Try narrowing your search

Try investigating places like Oxford, Vatican Library, British Museum and such. They may have links to their holdings of ancient manuscripts and papyrus. (Is their a plural form of papyrus?)

[InvisibleBallots]

25. please read the link in my original post

Especially concerning this:

"Whatever the dates of any given Greek or Latin manuscript, philologists (scholars who study the language and provenance of original historical manuscripts) can tell a lot from their style of language. A manuscript may be of relatively recent origin, but still contain very ancient language."

The link goes over the various techniques for dating documents, including philology. Of course, philology is NOT an independent dating technique (like C14 *can* be) but instead, has to be corroborated by the convention chronology.

People keep claiming that "scholars" have all these various techniques, but so far no one can provide any sort of evidence or reasoning for them.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. What you have posted here looks like theory to me

It's all interesting but not fact. The most interesting thing about science and history is that it keeps being revised.

[InvisibleBallots]

22. Yes, all science is "theory"

Of course. Fomenko's chronology is the first scientific study of the chronology or world history that is NOT based on the Scaliger chronology written in the 1400s, which was based on numerology and astrology.

As far as I can tell, there are ZERO historians who have looked at where the chronology comes from. The sorry state of the History departments are such that I would bet HALF the professors don't even have a clue who Scaliger was, or where their chronology comes from. Frankly, much of the "history" being taught is based on faith and tradition (like religion) - NOT on rigorous scientific discussion.

Don't believe me - read about Fomenko and the scientists working from his theories.

[enki23]

17. we don't believe the bits about the minotaur

in fact, we don't rely on a single source for much of everything. contrasting with the jesus myths, most historical happenings are written about by *lots* of people. it would take a pretty damned large conspiracy to account for all the accounts of julius ceasar, and by comparing them against each other we can get some kind of idea about the real story behind the distortions and embellishments. one shmuck's copycatted account of a first century david koresh, "backed up" by what seems likely to be a pious editing job in one of josephus' writings, doesn't require much of a conspiracy at all, on the other hand. and accounts of rising from the dea and walking on water aren't taken seriously by reasonable people no matter which source they come from.

if it makes you feel better, i don't believe in zeus either. though a lot more people wrote about him, back in his day, than wrote about some minor-league cult leader who was crucified (or not), dead, and buried, and resurrected by a more successful guru a while later.

[InvisibleBallots]

23. I think you are incorrect

"contrasting with the jesus myths, most historical happenings are written about by *lots* of people."

I'd love to see evidence of this. Again, the vast majority of our knowledge of "ancient" Greece and Rome are from a handful of texts - I mean less than 50. These texts are NOT in any way shape nor form "consistent" with each other.

"it would take a pretty damned large conspiracy to account for all the accounts of julius ceasar, and by comparing them against each other we can get some kind of idea about the real story behind the distortions and embellishments. one shmuck's copycatted account of a first century david koresh, "backed up" by what seems likely to be a pious editing job in one of josephus' writings, doesn't require much of a conspiracy at all, on the other hand."

You are simply wrong, about Josephus and the accounts of Julius Caesar. Let me ask a question - what are our major historical text regarding Caesar? Do you know? When were they "discovered"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. IB, do yourself a favor and ask the people in the History forum

about what kinds of evidence is accepted by mainstream historians.

It's not entirely non-controversial, which is why historians still have plenty to write about--aside from the fact that people are making new history all the time.

("The world will never run out of history.") :-)

[InvisibleBallots]

24. thanks for the suggestion

DU's not the place really. As for "mainstream historians" - they are about as reliable as "mainstream theologians". Just take a look at the reaction here when someone confronts information that puts their cherished traditions is a different light

Most "evidence" that is accepted by mainstream historians is three and four times removed from any primary evidence. There are literally thousands and thousands of "scholarly works" done on the ancient Roman empire, in which the "scholar" did ZERO research outside of reading "Decline and Fall of Rome".

That's not history, at least not scientific history, that's just argument from authority.

[trotsky]

26. If this isn't the place, then why are you here?

You'll only confront amateur historians because we lack the knowledge of the legitimate methods of scholarship and analysis corroborating the current timeline of events.

If you were so secure in your knowledge of the "true" facts, you'd be taking it to real historians to convince them.

YOUR argument has essentially been an argument from authority, by the way - the authority of this book you are infatuated with.

[InvisibleBallots]

27. hey trotsky

Who are you arguing with? I never claimed that I was "so secure in my knowledge of the true facts." Nor did I ever claim to be a historian.

What I can do is this - point out some interesting theories, that are based on primary historical evidence - as opposed to the typical "I found some website somewhere that said this" or the ever popular "the encyclopedia said this, and most scholars seem to agree".

Fomenko, and other historians and scientists who are investigating his theories - have done this - go to the original sources. That's a lot more interesting than YET ANOTHER rewrite of Gibbons don't you think?

[trotsky]

28. I would strongly suggest that you try to find someone to translate...

some of Fomenko's other works, like the ones that say:

* American Indians are ancestors of Russian Kazaks
* Moses was a Russian Leader suppressing rebellions in Western Europe
* Egyptian pyramids are graves of Russian Dukes
* and so on.

From what I have discovered, Fomenko is a Russian nationalist with an agenda of his own - namely, to promote the idea that Russia once had a global empire. If you think the collection of all historical knowledge to this point is worthy of skepticism, perhaps you should also train a skeptical eye on the source claiming so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. So Fomenko is to history as Lysenko is to biology?

:-)

[InvisibleBallots]

32. I'd love a link to your claims...

"I would strongly suggest that you try to find someone to translate... some of Fomenko's other works, like the ones that say:"

So, either you know Russian and German, the non-English languages that Fomenko writes in, or you know of an English discussion of works in which Fomenko has supposedly claimed this?

Please, can you give me the link of Fomenko making these claims? I'd love to check them out...

And by the way, the racist accusation - "Fomenko is a Russian nationalist with an agenda of his own - namely, to promote the idea that Russia once had a global empire." - I've read before. I have yet to see any proof of this. So far, I've read one article that claims Fomenko is making all of this stuff up because he is a Russian-supremacist - but I haven't been able to find any proof of these claims.

Please, don't keep me in the dark! Give me the link you found this info on?

[InvisibleBallots]

33. also, please validate this claim?

Fomenko claimed that "Russia once had a global empire"? Really?

The article I read claimed not that Fomenko said that Russia had a global empire, but that Fomenko wanted to "destroy" all civilizations that were older than Orthodox Catholicism, which many in Russia feel their civilzation is based on. Is that what you were trying to say? I don't recall Fomenko claiming that Russia once had a global empire...

[trotsky]

35. Yep.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=1398&TagID=2

Their concept of a mega-Russian empire occupying Eurasia and the British Isles until the 16th century and their belief in a total falsification of the past are increasingly fashionable.

[InvisibleBallots]

37. interesting article, unfortunately

I think they have some things wrong. First of all, the theory is based on Instanbul being the capital of an empire, and the last I checked Istanbul was in Turkey, not Russia :)

Also, this article doesn't dispute any of the work done - i.e., it makes no mention of our conventional chronology, where it comes from, doesn't discuss Fomenko's dynastic funtion research, nor the astronomical data.

Instead, you get spin and personal attacks, such as: "denouncing New Chronology as the work of charlatans set on robbing Russia and the rest of the world of their past" and all these scares like: "TO the alarm of Russian intellectuals..."

The entire article is nothing but a personal attack on the motivations of the researchers, and the author obviously didn't understand the theories that the new chronologists are suggesting.

That's okay - it is becoming "increasingly fashionable" - now not only is the research being done in Russia, but also Germany and recently Canada. Now that non-Russian mathmaticians and even some traditional historians are researching it, I assume that personal attacks on the authors will become less common :)

Even if Fomenko's theory is 100% false, his criticism of the conventional chronology hasn't been answered yet...

[trotsky]

34. The claims were made by a critic, who had read his other works.

But I did find where Fomenko himself dicusses the Moses issue.

http://lib.ru/FOMENKOAT/engltr.txt (Search for Moses.)

The bottom line is, there is much more to Fomenko than you apparently know. I wouldn't be so quick to give his work so much weight if I were you.

[InvisibleBallots]

47. what of Morozov then?

Or the other critics of Scaliger chronology? You seem to be saying that Fomenko just made this stuff up one day, when in fact, the Russian universities have been looking at this problem for well over 50 years, and just in the last few years are their works being published in non-Russian languages.

You'll see more and more work like this being done - as I mentioned, now German universities and colleges in Canada are picking up from Morozov now.

In any case, all these personal attacks on Fomenko's motivations are just that - personal attacks. Saying that he's making this stuff up because he is a Russian supremacist is nothing more than ad hominem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Fomenko does not use 'primary historical evidence'

he does things like manipulate dates of lists of rulers, until he can claim that they are the same as each other. He then claims this proves something. It doesn't. If you have changed the numbers, then they mean nothing.

He also misrepresents historians. For instance, he says Thucydides claimed a total eclipse during the Peloponnesian War, when in fact the claim is that the sun became a crescent, ie a partial eclipse. This destroys his theory that the dating for the war was about 1500 years out, because he relies on the fact that Greece did not have a total eclipse in 430 BC.

Historians constantly go to original sources. Fomenko is ignoring them, by claiming they are forgeries.

The web has loads of people trying to sell Fumenko's book. Your posts just seem to be more of them.

[trotsky]

38. Hey muriel

You obviously didn't get the memo. Don't you realize that:

(Fomenko's) criticism of the conventional chronology hasn't been answered yet

:eyes:

The same tactic, of course, is used by defenders of creationism and pseudo-science - no matter how many dismissals of their work are done, the constant claim: "Never been disproven!" is raised up. Interesting note on the eclipse - that does rather destroy a key point for Fomenko.

Oops! Now I did it! I forgot that "his criticism of the conventional chronology hasn't been answered yet"!! My bad.

[InvisibleBallots]

40. show me ANY dismissals, please?

:eyes:

Well, I do see "dismissals" - lots of people chanting "it's all rubbish" - but as of yet I haven't seen any actual refutation, based on the evidence, of his criticism of the conventional chronology. So ... where is it?

So far, I've been treated to four articles attacking Fomenko's motivations, calling him a racist, and ZERO actually discussing the content of his theories...

As to creations and pseudo-science - yes, the classics departments seem to run on the same appeals to "revealed truth" that creationism and pseudo-science does.

[trotsky]

41. Your cult-like devotion to Fomenko notwithstanding...

I think you're wasting your time here. Please go find a history board somewhere and work on convincing the experts. If you succeed, we will all learn the "truth" then.

[InvisibleBallots]

44. nothing but personal attacks

I believe it's against the rules - but whatever. This is history that directly relates to theology - Christian and neo-Pagan.

I suppose I have a cult like devotion to Morozov, Isaac Newton, Kasparov, Hardouin, and all the others that have disputed the conventional chronology?

[trotsky]

45. Just an observation.

Defenders of that group's assertions tend to behave in the same way as defenders of pseudo-science, just as you are doing here. Deny every criticism, cry out "personal attack!" when someone notices that your sources have a motivation of their own, etc., etc. Pardon me if this just looks like a bad movie I've already seen waaaay too many times.

[InvisibleBallots]

48. no, I think your criticism is just like defenders of pseudo science

and theology - you ignore most of the evidence, post a bunch of personal attacks on the motivations of the people doing the research, and then claim it's all rubbish? You claim that we have all this overwhelming evidence of the traditional chronology, when it fact most of it is "received wisdom" - posting to a Encylopedia entry (sans footnotes even) is just like a Fundie pointing to a Bible verse and claiming that that is proof.

"Defenders of that group's assertions tend to behave in the same way as defenders of pseudo-science, just as you are doing here. Deny every criticism, cry out "personal attack!" when someone notices that your sources have a motivation of their own, etc., etc."

I haven't denied any of the criticism. So far, we have one post regarding his dynastic chronology, which I treated as a fair criticism.

I've read exactly the arguements you've posted waaaay too many times.

[InvisibleBallots]

39. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect

Fomenko does use primary historical evidence.

"he does things like manipulate dates of lists of rulers, until he can claim that they are the same as each other. He then claims this proves something. It doesn't. If you have changed the numbers, then they mean nothing."

I don't think you understand how the dynastic functions work. As to "changing the numbers" - the records we have don't fit together, and we assume that there are mistakes in the historical record in any case.

"He also misrepresents historians. For instance, he says Thucydides claimed a total eclipse during the Peloponnesian War, when in fact the claim is that the sun became a crescent, ie a partial eclipse. This destroys his theory that the dating for the war was about 1500 years out, because he relies on the fact that Greece did not have a total eclipse in 430 BC."

I'll have to look up the claims about Thucydides - from what I remember he mentions three eclipses, correct?

"Historians constantly go to original sources. Fomenko is ignoring them, by claiming they are forgeries."

That's simply a lie. Fomenko is not ignoring original sources, nor is he claiming they are all forgeries. As to historians going to original sources all the time - some do, many simply rewrite Gibbons.

"The web has loads of people trying to sell Fumenko's book. Your posts just seem to be more of them."

Yah, just a personal attack - so far, that's all the critics of Fomenko, et al, have - personal attacks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. No, it's not all we have

I showed you the dates that Fumenko was using to try to prove his point, and that they were completely fucked up. You haven't addressed them at all.

Those 'dynastic functions' don't work. That's my point. They are lists of numbers that have been altered to look like each other. When real histories have a disagreement about a date, it's because they have cross-referenced events from multiple sources. It may be due to copying errors, confusion of names, or various other things. But you need major conflicts of information before you just dismiss 1000 years of history as forgery. What are these discrepancies?

But Fumenko is claiming that vague patterns of numbers prove that they all come from one source. How? If the numbers were precisely the same, then that might show something was suspicious. How about you list some the sources which you think are forgeries? And then give proper reasons for it.

What are the original sources that Fumenko is using? Someone wrote about these forgeries in the 15th century, did they?

[InvisibleBallots]

46. that can be a valid criticism

Perhaps you know enough about statistics of functions to say that Fomenko's numbers are "completely fucked up". I don't. It does seem to me that if the dynastic periods don't match in some cases, it would have a significant effect if you alter some specific entries. However, calling them "lists of numbers that have been altered to look like each other" is hardly different than the supposed "cross-referenced events from multiple sources". What I mean is the numbers are massaged in conventional history in mostly the same way - one source says that this king lasted x years, while another says x+1 years. And there are simply not that many sources to cross check either - for British history, what are there, three main bodies of writings?

The original sources that Fomenko is using? Well, let's see - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Historia Brittonum, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Scaliger's writings, etc.

And yes, there were many people who claimed that the classical histories that were being "discovered" were forgeries - such as Isaac Newton, Jean Hardouin, Erasmus - in many cases, these people were contemporary or nearly contemporary to the "discovery" of these supposedly ancient writings. This continues to this day, of course, remember "Hitler's Diary" "discovered" in the 1980s? This was accepted by many historians as authentic for a few years, until it was discovered to be a complete forgery.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm

"There are other arguments, of different type, claiming that there is nothing abnormal in coincidence of dynasty functions for different dynasties. For instance, we know that the probability of having winning lottery is very small but still there are communities that have one or more lottery winners. So, even very unlike events could happen. Critics of the New Chronology often mention that biographies of certain rulers, like Napoleon and Hitler (both dictators) are quite similar, so by applying the method of Morozov and Fomenko we should consider them to be the same person and ultimately make a senseless statement that the first 20 years of the 19th century are simply the years thirties and forties of the 20th century. There are many more similar arguments, but all of them miss the point that extremely rare events only happen in large samples. For example, although the chances of having a winning lottery ticket are extremely small, nevertheless the probability that somebody wins is one. But, this is not the case with the unrelated dynasty functions, for which the coincidence in the whole sample is even less probable than the coincidence of two random fingerprints.

There is also a claim that the "strange" coincidences between dynasty functions could be removed by making appropriate corrections of the historical data. However, even with modified dates the probability arguments still hold."

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. You don't need to know about the statistics of functions

you need to be able to count. Here are the lists that supposedly shows a correspondence, again (since you haven't addressed it yet):

English reigns  Byzantine
29              16 
2               13 
12              42
2               7
39              17 
13              0    (Leo II, who he misses out)
14              17
0               27
30              9
16              38
38

There is no match. Just look at the numbers! The only one in common is the 38 at the end. Using his lottery analogy, it's like saying you won because one of your numbers was right, and the other five were all within 6 of the 5 numbers drawn. Since Fomenko is claiming the ones on the left were made up, then he needs to show an exact correspondence with the Byzantine ones, otherwise it means nothing.

Fomenko doesn't use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - he's claiming it's a fake. He's claiming that all European history before about 1300 is faked. If there are any primary sources before that that he trusts, then name them. Tell us why he thinks the others are faked. His functions of reigns don't prove anything. They are just pretty pictures, designed to fool the gullible.

[InvisibleBallots]

50. yes, actually you do need to understand statistics of functions

Heh - Perhaps you don't understand what he's doing here - he is not trying to match the numbers from one column to another. :) You take the intervals of the dynasties which describe a function. Then, you compare that functions to others, and can get a number describing how similar they are.

"Fomenko doesn't use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - he's claiming it's a fake. He's claiming that all European history before about 1300 is faked. If there are any primary sources before that that he trusts, then name them. Tell us why he thinks the others are faked. His functions of reigns don't prove anything. They are just pretty pictures, designed to fool the gullible."

I don't think you really have any idea, at all. Is the Anglo Saxon Chronicle "true"? Are there mistakes in it? Does the Anglo Saxon chronicle describe real events, or mythological events? You say that Fomenko claims the Chronicle is "fake" - you are really over simplyfing here. That's not quite was is being said. Sorry, whatever :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. So explain what this function tells us about history

and whether documents are fakes or not.

What does Fomenko claim about the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, then?

[InvisibleBallots]

52. why not read it yourself?

Read Fomenko, Morozov, and the rest, they go into this in great detail. And, hey, if you don't understand the math, don't just dismiss it out of hand because it's beyond your comprehension. I'm no mathmatician myself, my education ending at college calculus, but at least take the time to read what he's saying and investigate it. I've posted a number of links, both to Fomenko and Morozov's work specifically, and abstract, theorizing, and popular dissertations of it.

Or not, whatever. I remember the first time I posted alternative theories of Christian history on Fundie websites, and they reacted in exactly the same way - "rubbish", "The bible is proven to be true, not mythology", and "you are just saying this because you hate Christianity" etc. Who knew I'd get the same reaction here when analyzing secular sources? Lots of various styles of fundamentalism it seems :) :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. There's a lot on that website

and the translations from Russian aren't always clear. But when you look at the numbers used (I've just started looking at another set - the kings of Judah v. the German kings/Holy Roman Emperors), you see that again, he's combining some reigns, using incorrect (ie not what the Bible says) for others, cherry-picking between dates of accession to the German throne and election as Emperor (ie he's inconsistent which he uses), and still he gets something with just 'roughly the right shape'.

The problem is that he seems to think that finding vague similarities (vague because he has to leave out some values, add others together, swap some) between 2 sets of digits means that one is a ripoff of the other. It doesn't. You can use rough fits for theories that have observational errors, but not for determining if one series was completely derived from another. He's trying to make the data fit his theory, not using the data to produce a theory.

He is doing pseudo-science.

And so far, you've done no analysis yourself whatsoever. You've just linked to this website with data that has been altered to fit a theory. That's why we're calling it 'rubbish'.

[InvisibleBallots]

54. look, it is science, not pseudo science

Surely you can understand the difference? He came up with a hypothesis, found some evidence to support it, and opens it up to peer-review. His theory may be correct, it may be incorrect. That's science. So you can belly ache about "pseudo science" all day long, it doesn't mean anything, sorry. Nothing Fomenko says is Gospel - however, he has a reputation as a serious mathmatician, he's been published all over the place, and his credibility is more than yours - or mine, for that matter.

Now, as to the specifics of the dynastic functions - I understand the complaint about what seems to be cherry picking - I responded to this point the first time, before I realized that you were expecting column A and B to be the same numbers ;). So, read my post again if you wish. Or not - just label is psuedo science, just like the fundies label evolutionary theory as pseudo science. Whatever :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. It's pesudo-science *because* he cherry-picks the evidence

and your response to "it's cherry-picking" seemed to be "so what? He gets a function from it". A function produced from junk is still junk. You can't compare it to anything.

This isn't peer-reviewed - there are a few other people who put things on the web repeating his claims, that's all. I can find plenty of people calling it junk, too. Where has a serious journal supported it?

Fomenko is no more believable than a creation scientist.

[InvisibleBallots]

56. you don't understand the math, sorry

You simply have no idea, and you've shown it quite clearly during this discussion.

"This isn't peer-reviewed - there are a few other people who put things on the web repeating his claims, that's all."

More crap - as I've said, these theories have been discussed and peer reviewed in Russia for 50 years now - just because you are ignorant of them, that means they don't exist? Come on, muriel_volestrangler, you can do better than this?

"Fomenko is no more believable than a creation scientist."

Lol! I guess I'm finished, please have the last word - I'd suggest some of your interesting theories about statistical similarities of functions! :)

Go ahead:

[trotsky]

57. It would appear that someone should give you for xmas...

a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People.

The person you are engaging there obviously understands a great deal about the topic - I don't think you gain anything by insulting their intelligence and claiming that because some other Russia-centric historians agree with him (Fomenko) it should be automatically accepted?

Point to independent peer-reviewed journals if you want this to be taken seriously. All you have done to this point is attack anyone who offers an opinion different than your dear Lord Fomenko. (Oh, and his cohorts. Sorry.)

[InvisibleBallots]

58. hey trots

You and Muriel both perhaps should read the book - both of you have engaged in some rather nasty ad homineum. And sorry, no - Muriel most certainly did NOT show she "obviously understands a great deal about the topic" - quite to the contrary.

"Point to independent peer-reviewed journals if you want this to be taken seriously. All you have done to this point is attack anyone who offers an opinion different than your dear Lord Fomenko. (Oh, and his cohorts. Sorry.)"

Yeah, more little personal insults there. I've posted a number of links to academic papers about this, feel free to read them - or remain ignorant of them. No sweat off my back.

So we're wasting our time here I guess - I'm finished. Feel free to have the last word - one of your clever little insults (like saying I love "Lord Fomenko" and all) should work just fine - here, go ahead:

[trotsky]

59. Heh, based on your post history

it's not your opponents who have been obsessed with getting the last word. Here, go ahead, prove me wrong:

[Astarho]

60. not really a belief

I agree that the scifundies can be just as irritating/obnoxious/dangerous as religious fundies, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing.

Are you arguing that because no original documents of Plato, Tacitus and others exist, they were made up in the Rennaisance? That would be false since the earliest form of Plato (fragments of the Republic) is in the Nag Hammadi texts, dated from 3rd and 4th centuries AD.

Fomenko's theory that there is no history before the 11th century is based on circular arguments, ie all dating methods are unreliable, and thus not a single artifact can be reliably dated. That and there are many errors he states, like he claims that radiocarbon dating is +/- 1500 years, which is wrong. The range on radiocarbon is about 30 years.

A few more of his spurious claims:

Another solid pillar of universal history is the Bronze Age, that has supposedly taken place thousands of years ago. Now, to make bronze you need 90% copper and 10% tin. Simple. Yes, but the technology for tin extraction dates back as late as 14 th century A.D.

The earliest bronzes were an alloy of copper and arsenic (which may have contributed to the "lame smith" of legend) which is why most ancient bronzes had various impurities. Also the technology for purifying tin dates from 600 BC, not the 1300's.

- How and why the myths of Ancient Rome & Greece were crafted during the Renaissance

Greek myths show remarkable similarity to Hittite myths found at the library of Hattusas, like the castration of Uranos by Kronos and he castration of Anu by Kumarbi. The Hittie myths were not deciphered until the 19th century.

Ultimately Fomenko's theories need just as much faith, if not more, as any other religious or scientific dogma.

[InvisibleBallots]

61. thanks for the response

"Are you arguing that because no original documents of Plato, Tacitus and others exist, they were made up in the Rennaisance? That would be false since the earliest form of Plato (fragments of the Republic) is in the Nag Hammadi texts, dated from 3rd and 4th centuries AD."

Not quite. Obviously, because they were "discovered" in the middle ages doesn't mean they aren't older than they middle ages - but I'm not sure there is any reason to believe they are actually that ancient.

"Fomenko's theory that there is no history before the 11th century is based on circular arguments, ie all dating methods are unreliable, and thus not a single artifact can be reliably dated."

That's not quite a fair characterization of what I've read at least - what he claims is that we have little writing that can be reliably dated before then. Also, no one said that all dating methods are unreliable - as to circular arguements, taking the conventional chronology and then "correcting" C14 samples to fit in with it is basically that problem isn't it?

As for Nag Hammadi (I've read most of it, btw) How was Nag Hammadi library dated? DSS was supposedly C14 dated to ancient times too - but of course, no one was allowed to indepedently analyze anything independently, and many scholars disagreed with the dating. In other words, it's a matter of trust - and there is no reason to trust the people in charge, since they have political motivations for dating them in a certain way.

Some of Fomenko's claims seem a stretch to me as well - but I think this is an area that really needs more research - I'm still trying to find anyone that has done any major corrections to the standard Scaliger chrology - and if Fomenko has convinced me of anything, it's that Scaliger's work is hardly scientific or rigorous. Again, thanks for the response.

[InvisibleBallots]

62. Astarho, can you give me some references please?

"Also the technology for purifying tin dates from 600 BC, not the 1300's."

When I brought this up in another forum, they scoffed - and asked for references to technology to purifying tin in 600 BC - can you give me a reference for this?

"he claims that radiocarbon dating is +/- 1500 years, which is wrong. The range on radiocarbon is about 30 years."

I believe the main criticism of the way C14 dating is done is that the samples are "calibrated" using the "known dates" of certain objects - in other words, if the "known date" of the reference object is incorrect, then the C14 dating would be incorrect. I believe that's what was meant by a +/- 1500 years. Can you give me some references to this?

"Greek myths show remarkable similarity to Hittite myths found at the library of Hattusas, like the castration of Uranos by Kronos and he castration of Anu by Kumarbi. The Hittie myths were not deciphered until the 19th century."

Do we know the dates of the Hittite myths? I've read is suggested they may be even younger than the Greek myths.

Thanks in advance.

[Az]

63. We are not required to "believe" secular or humanist history

It is an ongoing and self corrective process. In the case of someone such as Homer it is readily acknowledged that we do not have direct evidence of his existance. His existance is hinted at at best. But as there is unlikely any new evidence in the immediate offering we proceed with the assumption that his existance is acceptable.

This in contrast to the insistance of historocity of religious figures is a tad different. Religions start with the insistance that their figures exist and then demand that skeptics prove otherwise. This is improper application of logic. It is asking to prove a negative. Just as you cannot prove smurfs do not exist I cannot prove Jesus or Homer did not exist.

Secular studies do not ask you to believe. In fact they demand that you constantly question and challenge. To overturn an assumption is what makes the career of someone in this field.

As Stephen Gould once said. Scientists do not have to have faith. They do not stand around chanting that they believe in gravity.

Consider further the tremendous pressure and filtering that goes on with religiously significant figures. There is so much need for them to be real that the documentation process around them becomes clouded by the efforts of zealots. Where the works of simple artists can be handled with a level of dispassion the words believed to be of a religious figure cannot be so handled by those that cherish and revel in their very name.

[InvisibleBallots]

64. here's a thought

Some people are as attached to their "non religious ideology" as much as some religious people are attached to their "religious ideology". Many non-religious people will ignore evidence to the contrary of their views, exactly like many religious people do.

No one is required to believe anything - of course. Nevertheless, many non-religious fans of the secular and humanist history react with extreme hostility when their pre-conceived notions are questioned.

Perhaps it's a human trait, not a religious one?

And another thing - how long has it been since it's accepted that Homer may not be historical? Saying that Homer never existed could have gotten you thrown out of the university 75 years ago.

[Az]

65. Different topic entirely

You are discussing personality traits vs institution methodologies. Everyone has beliefs. The most ardent skeptic is a virtual font of beliefs. How an individual deals with challenges to their beliefs is an individual trait. Some do so badly while others take it in stride and even can learn from it.

To the issue of ideologies though Dogmatic approaches cannot discern when they go awry and in theory scientific/skeptical approaches do everything they can to discern if they have gone awry. Many people enbody and fuse together both systems. Again it depends on the individual.

It sounds to me as if you are trying to lump people into categories and not wishing to deal with them as individuals. Not really an effective way to start a journey. Perhaps its best to rid yourself of the labels and find out who the people talking to you are first.

As to Homer. Are you saying you were tossed out of school for denying his existance? I never heard of such a thing. It is true that various historical and scientific institutions can ossify and personalities can take hold rather than reason. But this is why they play out over time. Time eventually rids us of personality conflicts and leaves behind the theories unvarnished by personal charisma and force. If the theories do not stand on their own in time someone will tear them down. This is the nature of scientific revolution.

[InvisibleBallots]

66. why did you stoop to that little insult, Az?

I said that questioning Homer's historicity could have gotten you thrown out of a university 75 years ago, and you respond with this:

"Are you saying you were tossed out of school for denying his existance?"

There is no way that you actually think that's what I meant. I may be old, but you thought I might be, what, 93 years old?

Non-religious people can and are just as closed minded, bigoted, and prejudiced as religious people. Secular people react the same way as everyone else when their beliefs are questioned, boy have I discovered that in the last few years.

When I first started researching alternative theories to Christian history, I was shocked by the hostile reactions by Christians. Now that I'm researching alternatives theories to the secular history - I'm again shocked at the hostile reactions when people's preconceived notions and received wisdom is questioned.

I admit - a few years ago, I thought non-religious people were more open minded and rational than religious people. I was very wrong.

[Az]

67. Individuals and theories

First off sorry about the percieved insult. It was meant as mild humor.

As to the issue. Yes. Absolutely. You are going to come across stuborn individuals on any side of the matter.

But a further thing to consider is the notion that a theory has to undergo a vetting process. Imagine a student approaching a teacher and telling them everything they are teaching is wrong. The teacher is naturally going to react. The student seemingly has nothing backing them. A wild theory and not battles defending it under their belt. This will strike anyone as disrespectful to the existing theories.

Of course there is always the possibility that the student is entirely right. This is what makes the process work. If the new ideas have merit then over time it will gain support as more people are able to reshape how the see the issue. Eventually even the original teacher may be forced to acknowledge the students theory. The process is effective. Not easy. There is resistance.

[InvisibleBallots]

68. I'm probably being a bit over-sensitive, sorry

no problem.

I generally agree about how the process should work. I'm a big believer :) in peer review myself.

Now if some student tells the teacher that everything they are teaching is wrong, sure, I can understand the teacher being a bit miffed. On the other hand, for the teacher to then accuse the student of having an "undercover agenda" or being a "fascist" or "racist" because they dared to question the teacher or hold a differing view is a different thing entirely. I think that you and I probably agree on that.

This is an interesting story about the reaction to Fomenko's ideas in Canadian universities:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg51256.html

Nosovskii's new date for the birth of Christ
fills the screen. The man in tweed in front of me squints and reads. A
math student eating an extraordinarily large sandwich stops chewing, his mouth full, and stares.

1064 AD

The man in tweed erupts. He comes an inch out of his chair, makes a
noise, falls back. "But that would mean . . . . " he stammers,
incredulous. "That would mean that the First Ecumenical Council of
Nicaea preceded the birth of Christ! That's absurd!"

Krawcewicz registers this reaction without surprise. He knows that
campus opinion on Fomenko is already starkly divided, and that a number of professors, most of them historians, think the whole thing is nonsense.

[Az]

69. New ideas are always met with

But thats absurd! Most years later are worth a good chuckle. But some pick up support. Thats just the nature of the peer review process.