12 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOkay then, we can all agree. Lincoln and his "presidency" is nothing but fiction. I'm confident that the history books will soon be making the necessary adjustments. Thank you all for your help in solving one of the largest frauds of the century.
Fiction: An account of an event that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, where reality is the standard of truth, is not fiction. All other accounts of the event are.
31 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageya gotta face facts Bosse, and here's one big fact, On the internet you will meet jerks like these guys, that really have nothing of value to add to knowlege , but still ramble on , content in their own delusion that they are proving something other than their own idiocy.
Why don't you provide your own one, or are you a natural follower.
01 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI appreciate your insult. But I am simply referring to the problem of Dr. Scribbles' assessment of history being fiction. The logical conclusion followed to its end is that we cannot know anything of history at all, unless this is a game of probability. Accepting someone's fiction is not enough, something must be true, as Scribbles stated. My solution is what you might call the more "traditional" one. That being the case I am challenging the "uber-postmodernists" to explain what criteria if any they have for assessing the truth of historical claims.
Why don't you provide your own one, or are you a natural follower.
01 Sep 05
Originally posted by poopsiecuiSince you cannot know what a rock is in itself, I fear that all-encompassing knowledge of historical events is beyond you too. A game of probability--and interpretation--is all you have, short of some archeologist turning up a time machine left in good working order on some Jurassic beach...That game is quite a good one, though, and has more than enough complexity to keep everyone amused practically forever.
The logical conclusion is that we cannot know anything of history at all, unless this is a game of probability...I am challenging the "uber-postmodernists" to explain what criteria if any they have for assessing the truth of historical claims.
01 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow could we determine the probability of Lincoln's claim to the office of President? What sort of tests would you use?
Since you cannot know what a rock is in itself, I fear that all-encompassing knowledge of historical events is beyond you too. A game of probability--and interpretation--is all you have, short of some archeologist turning up a time machine left in good working order on some Jurassic beach...That game is quite a good one, though, and has more than enough complexity to keep everyone amused practically forever.
01 Sep 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaOr maybe you'd like something a little closer to the alleged time frame? Perhaps you want witnesses or associates of witnesses? Maybe you'd like writings that were circulated around hostile witnesses? Do these exist for Mr. Lincoln?
If I were to print off this thread, would that be a relevant document?