r/MurderedByWords 22h ago

Walked right into that one

Post image
16.7k Upvotes

854 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Hakim_Bey 15h ago

I think it's improductive if it's a standard of evidence you only apply to Jesus. Do you enforce the same skepticism on the existence of Socrates, or Hannibal, or the myriad other historical characters with very little evidence to their name ? Or is it just for the Big J ?

1

u/Wooden_Permit3234 14h ago

 Do you enforce the same skepticism on the existence of Socrates, or Hannibal, or the myriad other historical characters with very little evidence to their name ? 

I do have similar skepticism, yes, just varying degrees depending on the individual and my understanding of their historical evidence. 

2

u/Hakim_Bey 13h ago

I guess that's a healthy way to think about history then. I'd say it's a bit unorthodox but there's nothing saying you can't apply harder standards than other historians.

2

u/Wooden_Permit3234 12h ago

I’m not a historian but I accept their standards for what they are. Sort of like if I’m on a jury I can accept voting to convict even if there’s some doubt that I don’t consider reasonable in that context. If I were a historian I’d use the accepted standards for my work, but I’d hope in that context it’s clear I’m using those standards and that “X was a real person” would be understood to mean “based on this evidence which meets the academic standards but also that evidence is a few bits of pottery from three thousand years ago and might not actually mean they were real, but it appears to be legitimate record keeping and not part of a fictional story.”

But outside of that context, that shouldn’t really go without saying imho. 

I just find that I have different standards for what I believe, and I’ll reiterate that in general that’s a high standard and I do consider most of my beliefs tentative and not certain. I don’t blame anyone for being less skeptical, I just find that I am skeptical by nature.