dk@browngr.UUCP (Dave Kantrowitz) (08/28/84)
Approximately 3000 years ago, 600,000 men and many additional women and children witnessed a revelation of God's presence in the world. Most of the rest of the world accepted this data. Let us assume this revelation did not occur. What happened? Did 600,000 people lie? How could they coordinate such a consistent lie without mass media? How could so many people all agree to lie? And who would believe them? (the actual event was reportedly felt around the world) Did some individual or small group perpetrate a lie? This would solve the problems of mass media, but who could you convince without showing them the people? As a scientist or historian, one must find the most probable explanation for all pieces of evidence. It certainly seems more probable to take history on face value, instead of contriving a story about people spreading myths and lies. If you think otherwise, let's see you convince a million people that they have seen something they have not seen. Or let's see you convince a million people that their parents have seen something that their parents refuse to admit having seen.
anthro@ut-ngp.UUCP (Michael Fischer) (08/31/84)
<> Excuse me, but what happened approx. 3000 years ago??
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (09/04/84)
#R:browngr:-126400:uokvax:21200002:000:803 uokvax!emjej Sep 4 08:42:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.origins / browngr!dk / 3:25 am Sep 1, 1984 */ As a scientist or historian, one must find the most probable explanation for all pieces of evidence. It certainly seems more probable to take history on face value, instead of contriving a story about people spreading myths and lies. If you think otherwise, let's see you convince a million people that they have seen something they have not seen. Or let's see you convince a million people that their parents have seen something that their parents refuse to admit having seen. /* ---------- */ Oh? Convincing people of something is a trivial job, if it is something they want to believe for some reason (such as making them feel wanted, among a privileged few, or justifying something they wanted to do anyway). James Jones
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (09/04/84)
On the issue of human history, allow me to put to all a counter example.
In 1054, an event occurred. This event was recorded by Chinese astronomers
who noted that a new star had suddenly appeared in the heavens, and that this
star could even be seen during the day. I also believe that the appearance of
the supernova aided the downfall of the dynasty in power at that time.
Despite the prominence of the new star for Chinese court astronomers, there
is no record of the appearance of any new star in European records at that
time. The population of Europe was several million at the time, and granted
that only a small percentage of the population could read and write (official
scribes), but no one saw fit to write anything (that has been found yet).
Which account should we accept? That of the Chinese astronomers who wrote
about the new star, or the European astronomers who did not record any new
stars? Who was lying (the Chinese through commission or the Europeans through
omission)?
The tie breaker in this case comes from the observation by modern
astronomers of the Crab nebula. Based upon a model of how a supernova ejects
matter, and observations of the nebula, the hypothesis that a relatively
nearby supernova occurred approximately 1000 AD is consistent with the
Chinese observations.
This event, too, occurred before mass communication, though Europe did have
a rudimentary postal system between scholars, kings, and churchmen. My point
is, as a scientist, that eyewitnesses are not unbiased, impartial, and without
prejudice. While it is certainly simplest to take history on face value, it
can also be misleading on occasion. In addition, trial lawyers and magicians
will attest to the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphw