Comment by syzarian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syzarian | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

VoodooJuJu said: …this historian's personal impositions onto this ancient deity…

This gives me the impression that VoodooJuJu thinks the historian had an ideological agenda and was making a square be a circle so to speak. If the historians claims are not baseless then how can personal imposition be an apt description?

I agree with what you wrote but I think your edit is wrong. VoodooJuJu didn’t use the word baseless but I think that is the essence of their claim. How can the historian’s claim be an insight into today’s culture, views, and lives if the claim is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts? A claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by known facts is a claim that could be made by anyone whose language has words for what we call transvestism, gender fluidity, and androgyny. It seems to me at most, with a claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by known facts, one can only infer the level of permissiveness that experts had to discuss such topics.

I think maybe I didn't get my point across as well as I should have.

>How can the historian’s claim be an insight into today’s culture, views, and lives if the claim is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts?

Because the facts are evaluated through the lens of the historian. The lines of reasoning, logical conclusions, and modes/methods of investigation are all, inherently influenced by how the historian was raised, trained, and how/when/where they live. It's just part of being human. It is impossible to present literally anything without it being biased in some fashion. In deciding what to report and what not to, how much weight to give to historical accounts versus other historical accounts, what sources to chase down, even where to look in the physical world, we are imposing our own beliefs on the event.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

Not about this specific article, or the concepts of gender fluidity, etc. But the actual process of investigating and reporting historical facts. It is an inherently biased process. It just is.

And I believe that was the OP's point.

I understand what you are saying and agree with it but not as it pertains to JuJu’s comment and intent.

A baseless claim says much about the person making it. A claim that is well reasoned and supported by the facts says very little about the person making it.

If I say: The IQ of blacks in the U.S. is on average lower than that of whites. that says nothing about my ideology. If I say: Black people are stupid. that says much about my ideology.

Making a claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts says that the person making the claim reasoned it well and had facts that supported that reasoning and they possessed the vocabulary and permissiveness to discuss those ideas. One can not infer a person’s ideology from such a claim. Of course biases and experience play a role in these things but looking from the outside you can’t say of well reasoned claims: personal imposition. That is too strong of a conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com