Support NeoGAF

[King Gilga]

Jesus, Hitler, and Buddha.

 

[crisdecuba]

One thing I forgot to mention re: the Jesus argument in reply to the OP is that he has large groups of people traveling around the world with the goal of telling people about him. ;-)

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

LOL! You think the council of Nicaea (and the other sometimes violent meetings between the early Cristian cults) was about removing the blatantly fake shit?

Don't kid yourself.

LMAO

Please expound.

 

[Pixels]

Who are you talking about? Ramesses II?

I don't know?!

 

[Lister]

You're pretty clearly not an academic, so I don't understand what your horse in this race is other than just ironically sitting on your "ass making shit up".

Besides being a condescending ass hat, what credentials do you posses exactly, that allows you to dictate who can or cannot participate in a discussion here on Gaf?

Are you a moderator?

 

[BocoDragon]

That's not really accurate. There were many many splinter factions of the Jesus movement with their own traditions. Hence the 4 Gospels (many more were written) and the need for the council of Nicaea to codify the beliefs and remove the blatantly fake shit from the record.

The Bible is a collection of stories and letters from a variety of people. It wasn't written by one guy.

Yes, but who was the earliest of these sources? St. Paul, written decades after Jesus lived. And keep in mind that many of the other sources in the Bible are based on St. Paul's account.

Sometimes I get the impression that people think the Bible is a Roshomon-style collection of different eyewitness news accounts of Jesus's life... when they were all written in various eras long after his life, all from people who never directly met him.

To be clear, I think he probably lived as described. My point is that people tend to think of him as being more rooted in historical events than he is. He was an obscure figure and decades later was written about for the first time. You could assert he were a myth or forgery without it butting up against any hard historical record. Though, I don't.

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was probably written in 52 AD.
If Jesus died in 33 AD, then it would make that letter being written 19 years after Jesus' death. That would be more than half less than 40 years.

These dates are pretty wiggly and you could give or take a few years on all of them. But I'll take the L.. it probably wasn't 40 years. It was 15-30 at most.

The point though is that it was decades, and was written by someone who wasn't there. Thats far enough removed that the story could be derived from a rumor or a legend. I don't think it was... but it's not at all impossible.

Even today you could write a book about some story you heard from someone else that took place 20 years ago and it needn't refer to the truth of a tale. Urban legends, conspiracy theories, etc.

It's like people forget not everyone was able to write during those days and getting hold of something to write on and something to write with wasn't that easy. Also it was common back then to take time to write things down. Sometimes it just wasn't possible to write anything down. And tons of stone tablets and papyrus are destroyed and disappeared forever. It's quite lucky we have even this much of stuff collected in the Bible. I mean, people have found never before seen writings as late as last century.

It's easy for us to say today that the time between some ancient event and the text written about that event is oddly long. That's just how it was back in the day. There weren't people tweeting about things the second they happen.

If Jesus lived as described, I certainly wouldn't expect a better record of those days. He could be perfectly real, and this is the paper trail we get. I know that and I agree with it.

But things being as they are, there should be room for doubt. I'd extend the same amount of skeptical possibility to any figure who supposedly lived in the murkiness of early history and wasn't corroborated by multiple sources. As I said... Jesus isn't a Caesar, Mohammad or Churchill, who made waves in society that multiple contemporary sources attest to.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I'd agree that's a simplistic reading of early church councils, but I have a feeling you aren't particularly aware of early church, and especially early ecclesiastical, history.



It isn't a science full stop. Social sciences are not sciences.



There's a lot wrong here. First of all it's been accepted for many decades now that there is no the scientific method. There are scientific methods. It's a descriptive not prescriptive term.

Secondly archaeology as a discipline is not experimentational, a core but not sufficient trait of the sciences.

Third of all I have a feeling you know little to nothing about philosophy, which both science and archaeology derive from. This isn't even an argument. You are just asserting philosophy is garbage without really giving a concrete reason, ironically while also praising science which gained and in its self-understanding, which I admit I think is incorrect, maintains legitimacy due to philosophy.

You're pretty clearly not an academic, so I don't understand what your horse in this race is other than just ironically sitting on your "ass making shit up".

He has an agenda. He's just anti-Christian to the point of anti-intellectualism.

 

[Lister]

He has an agenda. He's just anti-Christian to the point of anti-intellectualism.

Yeah, I'm the one with the agenda. Not you. Nope.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Yeah, I'm the one with the agenda. Not you. Nope.

You're the one discrediting the majority of scholars and historians.

 

[Lister]

You're the one discrediting the majority of scholars and historians.

How?

 

[Cocaloch]

I think that a lot of people with some science background (say, a high school or undergraduate level background), but no real experience actually taking part in scientific research and publication, have an idealized impression of the scientific process.

Science aims to be objective, but humans are involved. Experimental design is often flawed, results are often talked up, and people with some stature in their fields are in a position to put down theories that go against their own pet ideas.

Theoretically, every experiment can be reproduced and independently verified, but in the modern age of heavily modelled, computer aided brute force number crunching, some of this stuff is really expensive. Who has the extra funding and time to do that? You won't get a splashy publication from verifying someone else's work. In most fields, you won't get published at all for doing that. Similarly, no one bothers to publish negative results in most fields (medicine probably being one of the exceptions, but I have little background in medical research).

Well put, and I agree especially with your points on the somewhat scientific literate. I actually think that's a big part of why GAF as a community tends to heavily lean on some really problematic interpretations of science. That being said there are also a number of scientists who also seem to fall into this trap as well. We need better philosophy and history of science education in undergrad in general I think.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Fair enough... What about Isaac Newton?

Better maybe? But still got nothing on Einstein.

 

[Cocaloch]

Besides being a condescending ass hat, what credentials do you posses exactly, that allows you to dictate who can or cannot participate in a discussion here on Gaf?

Are you a moderator?

I never said anything about whether or not you could participate. Moreover you should reread your statement about philosophy if you want to see some condescension. My post was merely parroting your language.

Moreover, you managed to completely ignore all of my quite relevant points with that ad hominem. Why don't you go back and address them.

To avoid further ad hominems about any possible agenda on my part I will let you know that I am agnostic and a historian.

This is the rest of the post which you ignored.

I'd agree that's a simplistic reading of early church councils, but I have a feeling you aren't particularly aware of early church, and especially early ecclesiastical, history.

It isn't a science full stop. Social sciences are not sciences.

There's a lot wrong here. First of all it's been accepted for many decades now that there is no the scientific method. There are scientific methods. It's a descriptive not prescriptive term.

Secondly archaeology as a discipline is not experimentational, a core but not sufficient trait of the sciences.

Third of all I have a feeling you know little to nothing about philosophy, which both science and archaeology derive from. This isn't even an argument. You are just asserting philosophy is garbage without really giving a concrete reason, ironically while also praising science which gained and in its self-understanding, which I admit I think is incorrect, maintains legitimacy due to philosophy.

This is your own language which you find so condescending when directed against you.

but it's not like it's some philosophy, were people sit on their ass making shit up.

Yeah, I'm the one with the agenda. Not you. Nope.

Everyone has an agenda. The issue is yours is quite clearly preventing you from speaking reasonably on this topic.

 

[old manatee]

Everybody knows Kevin Bacon.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yes, but who was the earliest of these sources? St. Paul, written decades after Jesus lived. And keep in mind that many of the other sources in the Bible are based on St. Paul's account.

Sometimes I get the impression that people think the Bible is a Roshomon-style collection of different eyewitness news accounts of Jesus's life... when they were all written in various eras long after his life, all from people who never directly met him.

To be clear, I think he probably lived as described. My point is that people tend to think of him as being more rooted in historical events than he is. He was an obscure figure and decades later was written about for the first time. You could assert he were a myth or forgery without it butting up against any hard historical record. Though, I don't.


These dates are pretty wiggly and you could give or take a few years on all of them. But I'll take the L.. it probably wasn't 40 years. It was 15-30 at most.

The point though is that it was decades, and was written by someone who wasn't there. Thats far enough removed that the story could be derived from a rumor or a legend. I don't think it was... but it's not at all impossible.

Even today you could write a book about some story you heard from someone else that took place 20 years ago and it needn't refer to the truth of a tale. Urban legends, conspiracy theories, etc.



If Jesus lived as described, I certainly wouldn't expect a better record of those days. He could be perfectly real, and this is the paper trail we get. I know that and I agree with it.

But things being as they are, there should be room for doubt. I'd extend the same amount of skeptical possibility to any figure who supposedly lived in the murkiness of early history and wasn't corroborated by multiple sources. As I said... Jesus isn't a Caesar, Mohammad or Churchill, who made waves in society that multiple contemporary sources attest to.

The issue with all this is it simply isn't a historian's mindset. It's probably essentially positivism, but I don't want to get into that. What I do want to get into is that it's an unreasonable standard for sufficient evidence for historical purposes. Generally historians read their sources generously unless there is a specific reason not to.

I'm sure in my time in the archives I've come across countless figures only mentioned once or twice. That doesn't mean I don't trust that these people were real. I'm sure the vast majority, if not all, of them were.

 

[Acorn]

There is some next level fedoraing going on here. I feel like it isn't even just a fedora anymore, there's a cloak and 18th century walking stick.

 

[Despera]

Mormon Jesus

 

[DJMicLuv]

I'm sure in my time in the archives I've come across countless figures only mentioned once or twice.

Which archives were these? And, no, Microsoft Encarta doesn't count.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It isn't..

I am not attacking science at all. I am attacking the assertion that it is science that gives us facts.

Of course it is.

What else gives us facts?

You jack off science. You think it is the only methodology for which explains our world. Philosophy, history, archaeology, sociology,

...Sociology and archeology are sciences.

I value science, but you jack off science. Just stating facts. I have some suggestions though: some lotion would go a long way.

Wow. Really?

You're right, it is a science.

And they posit Jesus existed, as seen earlier in this thread.

You say you value science but don't take the words of your scientists seriously.

That is because you have an agenda.

lol... He literally said, in the post you quoted, that he believed in the historicity of Jesus. Your posts have been nothing but one embarrassment after another.

 

[Cocaloch]

Which archives were these? And, no, Microsoft Encarta doesn't count.

A large number. Off the top of my head the British Library, the National Archives of Scotland, the special collections of the University of Edinburgh, the special collections of the University of Glasgow, and extensive archival work through various digitized archives like Eighteenth Century Collections Online.

Of course it is.

What else gives us facts?

Do you think 1 + 1 is a fact?

On another note if you push too far on other forms of understanding not providing facts you end up reaching the point where the idea that science itself provides facts is on unstable ground. The matter-of-fact is a rather complicated idea.

Sociology and archeology are sciences.

Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

There is some next level fedoraing going on here. I feel like it isn't even just a fedora anymore, there's a cloak and 18th century walking stick.

This fedora meme is so out of hand. Instead of being applied to genuinely ridiculous people like that Reddit guy, it's now applied to the mildest form of questioning anything vaguely religious-oriented.

Do you think 1 + 1 is a fact?

...Math is a science? It's the purest science. What are you even saying?

Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.

lol, if you say so.

 

[Cocaloch]

...Math is a science? It's the purest science. What are you even saying?

Math is not a science. It's actually more or less on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum. You don't run math experiments.

lol, if you say so.

Do you think historians are scientists?

 

[Elitist1945]

I really have to go with Hitler, sadly.

 

[Mumei]

Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.

You are making an assertion without making an argument to support it. Why are they categorically not sciences, despite being identified as a science, in the same way we might refer to the physical sciences or life sciences?

 

[Radec]

Y'all discrediting Jesus needs some schooling..

 

[Cocaloch]

You are making an assertion without making an argument to support it. Why are they categorically not sciences, despite being identified as a science, in the same way we might refer to the physical sciences or life sciences?

Alternatively the assumption that they are sciences is an assertion without an argument. I'm not sure why you feel like you don't need to offer an argument either.

I mentioned earlier in the threat that a major, but not sufficient, trait of sciences is that they are experimental. That rules out certain social sciences, specifically cultural anthropology, history, and archaeology along with math from being sciences.

I could go further with this, but I think flipping the table here is more useful. What definition of science can you think of that manages to include the social sciences?

Also are they really identified as a science? As a social scientist myself I feel like we tend to be considered scientists when it suits some purpose and have our disciplines derided as not scientific whenever we don't which is the vast majority of the time. If you're just talking about the name being social science it's probably noteworthy that the "Queen of the Sciences" was Theology, and that calling these disciplines social sciences was a positivistic move.

 

[autumnleaf]

And The US President is far more well known than the queen of England come on man.

I don't know about that. Elizabeth is very well known around the world, Britain has ties to so many countries and she has been in power for a very very long time. I would say she is almost certainly the most famous/recognisable female in the world.

 

[Kastrioti]

Moses

Edit: Probably most influential not famous

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You are making an assertion without making an argument to support it. Why are they categorically not sciences, despite being identified as a science, in the same way we might refer to the physical sciences or life sciences?

History doesn't have things like control groups, replication, asymmetrical data, experimentation, etc. These are pretty important for science as defined in most English-speaking countries.

You can't directly test whether Jesus existed or not.

 

[Brakke]

Y'all on some weird semantics tangent. A discipline is science if it's practioners follow the scientific method, which is a well-defined process.

Lots of social science studies don't replicate. But they're still produced through a scientific process. The social sciences have kind of a weak track record, so you should be skeptical of any given result they produce, but some results *have* accrued enough evidence to accept.

 

[Cocaloch]

Y'all on some weird semantics tangent. A discipline is science if it's practioners follow the scientific method, which is a well-defined process.

It really isn't a well-defined process. You'll find that most historians and philosophers of science have accepted since at least the 70s that there is no single scientific methods. Instead there are various scientific methods. The term is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Lots of social science studies don't replicate.

Replication isn't really the issue. Several aren't experimental at all.

But they're still produced through a scientific process.

This is somewhat acceptable for some of them, but certainly not all of them. Do you think history is made through a scientific process?

The social sciences have kind of a weak track record, so you should be skeptical of any given result they produce, but some results *have* accrued enough evidence to accept.

Uhhh what? I'm not saying that they aren't sciences so we should disregard them. I'm saying the opposite. These valuable epistemologies aren't science and therefore science does not have a monopoly on producing useful knowledge. Your approach seems to assume that good knowledge is produced by science and so to defend social sciences we must argue that they are sciences.

 

[Mumei]

Alternatively the assumption that they are sciences is an assertion without an argument. I'm not sure why you feel like you don't need to offer an argument either.

If I'd retorted, "Yes, they are!", you would have a point here, but I didn't. I was asking because I wanted to know why you thought that they weren't. I don't need to defend the opposite proposition just to ask you about your stated position.

And thanks for answering!

I mentioned earlier in the threat that a major, but not sufficient, trait of sciences is that they are experimental. That rules out certain social sciences, specifically cultural anthropology, history, and archaeology along with math from being sciences.

I could go further with this, but I think flipping the table here is more useful. What definition of science can you think of that manages to include the social sciences?

Also are they really identified as a science? As a social scientist myself I feel like we tend to be considered scientists when it suits some purpose and have our disciplines derided as not scientific whenever we don't which is the vast majority of the time. If you're just talking about the name being social science it's probably noteworthy that the "Queen of the Sciences" was Theology, and that calling these disciplines social sciences was a positivistic move.

You said "certain"; so some social sciences you do think are sciences?

Are you familiar with Massimo Pigliucci? This conversation reminds me of a book I read of his called Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. There's a section called, appropriately enough, "Soft vs. Hard Science: The Proof Is in the Data," which you would probably find interesting (which starts on page 13). I found it interesting and persuasive as a layman, at any rate.

And as a historian, you might find an essay in Darnton's The Great Cat Massacre: And Other Episodes in French Cultural History called "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopédie" interesting, which is about the dethroning and subjugation (in a manner of speaking) of theology from its privileged position.

 

[NEO0MJ]

Theoretically, every experiment can be reproduced and independently verified, but in the modern age of heavily modelled, computer aided brute force number crunching, some of this stuff is really expensive. Who has the extra funding and time to do that? You won't get a splashy publication from verifying someone else's work. In most fields, you won't get published at all for doing that. Similarly, no one bothers to publish negative results in most fields (medicine probably being one of the exceptions, but I have little background in medical research).

I remember listening to the radio about a University that was doing a study on how trusted some experiments in journals are and found that a not so small number of them were difficult to reproduce.

 

[Fast Forward]

I'm Atheist, and even I know the correct answer is Jesus. Hell, what the current year is even based on Christ. Dude kind of has a enduring legacy.

That being said, what about mythological characters, like Santa Claus?

 

[PdotMichael]

No they are not. What's wrong with people? This kind of shat got Trump elected. Jeez.

Oh wow... idiot.

 

[HiiiLife]

Drake.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Goddamn I didn't expect the thread to evolve into such a way.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread about "Is Jesus a real person" at this point, lol.

 

[Cocaloch]

If I'd retorted, "Yes, they are!", you would have a point here, but I didn't. I was asking because I wanted to know why you thought that they weren't. I don't need to defend the opposite proposition just to ask you about your stated position.

And thanks for answering!

Fair enough. My reasoning for asking for the alternative was the fact that other people in the thread seem fairly certain that it is a science without critically analyzing it and the fact that I felt like I spelled out a pretty good argument for why the social sciences weren't sciences earlier in the thread.

You said "certain"; so some social sciences you do think are sciences?

No, but I feel like arguing why some, specifically economics, sociology, and psychology, aren't sciences require fundamentally different arguments. This is of course because they are closer to sciences, being experimental.

Either way establishing that some social sciences aren't science is sufficient to demonstrate that the claim that social sciences are sciences is incorrect.

Are you familiar with Massimo Pigliucci? This conversation reminds me of a book I read of his called Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. There's a section called, appropriately enough, "Soft vs. Hard Science: The Proof Is in the Data," which you would probably find interesting (which starts on page 13). I found it interesting and persuasive as a layman, at any rate.

No, I've not really dealt with him. My knowledge of a lot of the field drops off after the 80's when the field drifted away from my era following the publication of Leviathan and the Air Pump. If it's not clear from my earlier posts I'm a pretty strong advocate of the SSK as well.

Additionally I feel pretty uncomfortable with the term soft sciences for a lot of reasons. Social sciences aren't less than science because they aren't science they are just different.

In addition, I feel like history more than most fields is fairly self-aware due to its nature and the fact the historiography is always a major topic. Historians tend to be more attuned to the pitfalls that have accompanied trying to hitch your legitimacy wagon to being scientific. No doubt also aided by Buckle's dramatic failure. As a result I think historians tend to be more likely than a lot of other social scientists to advocate for social science to argue for legitimacy on its own legs instead of on some connection to science.

And as a historian, you might find an essay in Darnton's The Great Cat Massacre: And Other Episodes in French Cultural History called "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopédie" interesting, which is about the dethroning and subjugation (in a manner of speaking) of theology from its privileged position.

I've read selections from that book quite some time ago, but I don't recall if I read that chapter in particular. Thanks for the recommendation. The French creation of science is always interesting for me because they did so in essentially the opposite manner of the English and Scots. The distinction between the two in the English and especially in the Scottish case comes much later and is much less distinct. The great Scottish scientists of the 18th century were Kirkmen after all.

 

[Abelard]

For those who still doubt historical Jesus, I implore you to read this post from AskHistorians subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...ere_for_a_historical_jesus/chf3t4j/?context=3

 

[dragonelite]

Probably Buddha given he is the Asian version of Jesus or vice versa. And more people life in that region then outside of it. Here in the West probably Jesus or some pop star.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Probably Buddha given he is the Asian version of Jesus or vice versa. And more people life in that region then outside of it. Here in the West probably Jesus or some pop star.

That doesn't necessarily correlate to how well known they are, but "Asian version of Jesus" isn't even close to accurate. "Asian Jesus" is probably Muhammad, but Jesus is still a major figure in Islam, so . . .

 

[-tetsuo-]

As Louis CK said, just ask yourself "What year is it" and you will know.

 

[Moonkid]

Goddamn I didn't expect the thread to evolve into such a way.

Maybe someone should make a separate thread about "Is Jesus a real person" at this point, lol.

To be honest I'm having a great time casually browsing through the discussion.

 

[DemWalls]

To be honest I'm having a great time casually browsing through the discussion.

Indeed.
Sure, there are the usual drive-by posts of little value (by users from which I expected them, frankly), but also some really good stuff.

 

[Cocaloch]

That doesn't necessarily correlate to how well known they are, but "Asian version of Jesus" isn't even close to accurate. "Asian Jesus" is probably Muhammad, but Jesus is still a major figure in Islam, so . . .

I think Buddha is much more diffused in through non Buddhist populations than Jesus and Muhammad are in non-Christian or non-Muslim ones. I still think Jesus and Muhhamad win, but a simple comparison of Buddhist and Abrahamic populations isn't really sufficient.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Denis Dyack

 

[Cocaloch]

Denis Dyack

In an alternate universe Too Human is the greatest artistic project that the world has ever seen.

 

[Ace Harding]

Hideo Kojima

 

[boxoctosis]

Michael Jackson

I'm going to go with Lee Ranaldo, based on that other thread.

Or Genghis Khan.

 

[petran79]

I think that a lot of people with some science background (say, a high school or undergraduate level background), but no real experience actually taking part in scientific research and publication, have an idealized impression of the scientific process.

Science aims to be objective, but humans are involved. Experimental design is often flawed, results are often talked up, and people with some stature in their fields are in a position to put down theories that go against their own pet ideas.

.

An education researcher at a conference told us that regarding science today's truth is tomorrow's lie.

Neither of them are sciences. Social sciences aren't sciences, and people only really call them that when it suits them.

They are not natural sciences though they borrow lots of elements from them. They should borrow more.