Historical Truths Can be Discovered

Critique of Historical Relativism The Problem of Lack of Direct AccessPost Modern RelativismFor Weak Postmodern Relativism, I may be mistaken about seeing x as a pencil but I can discover my mistakes. Texts and artifacts are reconstructions limited by data, the historian isn’t free to interpret the texts as he likes! Texts have limited meaning, as in the labels on the box of medicine (so no one’s a Post Modern Relativism here)! Texts therefore are taken as evidence, which have limited meanings that are particularly important to us. Weltanschauung AnalysisFor the first thesis of Weltanschauung, how does a different Weltanschauung correlates with each unique theory? If Weltanschauung is defined broadly, then it’s just one’s different total background knowledge & scientists do employ same theories all the same. But if Weltanschauung is defined narrowly, then it’s bizarre to suggest one group of theorists have uniquely different Weltanschauung from other theorists. Thus theory ladeness undermines objectivity in neither science nor history!For thesis two of Weltanschauung, that theory terminology is theory-dependent, how is it the case that just because two different theories can’t disagree / agree, so the alternatives are meaningless? Does this really entail that every theory becomes true by definition and so its testing is circular? Perhaps meaning is partially determined by theory principles, but terminology in history is formulated in normal language, not in theoretical termsFor thesis three of Weltanschauung, that facts are also theory-dependent, the strong form of this view says that facts are literally determined by our Weltanschauung, which leads to solipsism. The weak form: that facts are at least determined by our Weltanschauung, can only be defended on the basis of Weltanschauung thesis' 1 – 2. A body of evidence exists to adjudicate between theories, however, and any reconstruction must make its peace with the evidence to be accepted. Thus, Post Modern Relativism's appeal to Weltanschauung Analyses is in vainRecall that the relativist implications from indirect access to the past entails only mind-dependent historical facts: if everyone forgot x, then it wouldn’t be a fact. There is historian-dependant meaning in facts and so there's a historian-dependant history. Under this paradigm there are only un-testable historical facts: there’s no way to test x, since it’s in the past!But the proposition, "facts have no meaning” is self refuting. A historical fact is a historical event itself or a piece of accurate information about that event. Thus a historian makes statements about facts. For instance, Lincoln’s death would’ve made an impact on the US whether anyone remembered it or not! So facts exist independently of our minds & have their impact long after they’re forgotten. The Problem of Lack of NeutralitySubjectivism vs. ObjectivismThe relativism is giving mere superficial relativism, he’s deeply objectivist for history. In deed relativists recognize historical objectivity in three ways: 1) A common core of indisputable historical facts exist, 2) distinguishing between history & propaganda is possible, 3) criticizing poor history is possible. Let’s look at each of these in turn: 1: A Common Core of Indisputable Facts ExistThe declaration of Independence dating, Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, the sale of Indulgences in 1517, Lincoln’s Assassination. All of these we agree on their historical accuracy. If someone said Hamlet was written at Genghis Khan’s court in Mongolia, you’d laugh at them. In fact the common core of facts can be found in Langer’s Encyclopedia of World History. If there is a common core, then the relativist claim is vitiated, facts do speak for themselves2: Distinguishing Between History & Propaganda is PossibleSoviets used to rewrite history for their political purposes, which is what we consider propaganda. The most dangerous thing about historical relativism is its use in propaganda! For if facts have no meaning, there’s no way of protesting the propagandizing of history. Relativists therefore want to say facts do make a difference and shouldn’t be propagandized. 3: Criticizing Poor History is PossibleVelikovsky rewrote history on the basis of ET catastrophes. Now every historian, relativist or not, criticized Velikovsky, but how can they do such a thing on a relativist view? I think it’s simply obvious that any relativist who criticizes poor history, implicitly admits historical objectivity. Mitigation of SubjectivityContrary to what Anaxa thinks, the lack of neutrality can be mitigated by 6 Factors:1) Proper Historical Method2) Public acknowledgement of one’s horizon & methodology3) Historian’s community of Peer-review4) Submitting hypothesis to hostile experts5) Presence of common core6) Serious effort at one’s detachment from biasKarl Popper defends that peer-review and discussion is the best way out of unconscious subjectivism. Aron says that relativism transcended once the historian recognizes other views. The Purpose of Rewriting HistoryEvery generation there’s new sources and evidence is uncovered, there’s new appreciation of a certain form of art, music, etc. As well as new perspective on what has happened. So the rewriting of history advances our knowledge of the past as new discoveries are made. Presuppositional NaturalismSupernaturalism is the view that some causes are found within space-time and some outside space-time. Methodological Naturalism on the other hand entails that a historian remains agnostic when speaking professionally about these issues. She can still acknowledge that as a human being she accepts super-naturalistic explanations!Naturalism views that all causes are only found within the space-time realm of matter and energy. So all naturalists must either deny miraculous events or deny their historicity. Here, McGullagh says that that a miracle hypothesis, H is be greater in explanatory scope and explanatory power, but less plausible and more ad hoc. But whether miracles are more ad hoc is deferred here, http://debate.org...And for the last round I’ll ask why the resurrection H is less plausible? But for that you'll have to recall that Baye’s Theorem calculates the probability, Pr of H given the evidence, E. And E includes our background knowledge (general evidence) and specific evidence. Pr (H/E) = Pr (H) * Pr (E/H) Pr (H) * Pr (E/H) + Pr (¬H) * Pr (E/¬H)= If 1, then H is certain given EDefending Historical RealismEverything Ive said so far has rebutted the claims made here by Anaxa. ConclusionNeither problems of the lack of direct access or lack of neutrality prevent us from learning objective history. Hence history may lead us to knowledge of God himself