barsoomcore said:
You're painting a pretty big group with a pretty broad brush, there. It seems like you're saying that history is getting LESS reliable because people are jerks.
..
But to say that scientists are generally becoming less reliable people, and that therefore our knowledge of history is becoming less reliable, is not a position I can consider very seriously.
It is a bit broad of a brush to paint - but generally speaking it's the trend in the modern world to develop a theory, then bash on anyone with contrary data or standpoint.
Case in point - the sphinx question. The reason the geologist didn't publish much (from his own mouth) was because he didn't want to take a formal stance on the subject that might impact his geologist career.
The majority of the opposition debunking his findings are egyptologists. The majority of those supporting his position are geologists and paleogeologists.
But this is only a case in point. Many of today's so-called scientists (or historians) latch onto a theory and defend it even in light of potential contrary data. It's not until a a pile of contrary data piles up that they change their viewpoint.
Different case in point: Research one of the first archies that found burial sites near the great pyramids. He 1) leapt immediately to the conclusion these were the builders (later recanted his position, but only after stubbornly sticking to it for along time) and 2) his method of dating one grave to another wos solely by comparing the roughness of the craftsmanship of artifacts between the two.
There's so many flaws with that approach that I'll not detail them. However - due to his 'prestige' and his 'adamant' defense of his datings, his was the commonly accepted date for the majority of the graves, his process was the one used from his time period (late 1800's) to the mid 1900's, and was applied to a variety of sites. Also, his conclusions were used as a starting assumption by several other archies that came along later.
The problem? If an ancient egyptian was buried, his household goods were buried with him - if he was poor, those were of poor quality, if he was well-off, these were of greater quality. It had very little to do with actual temporal positioning in the time stream!
Yet it took nearly a hundred years for sufficient data to pile up before the 'scientists' agreed to the mistake. Even so, it crops up now and then even in today's modern world of scientists.
Now, I know I'm painting a broad brush. Probably broader than I should. But the problem has been on the increase, not staying them 'per capita' as one put it earlier. However, there is still some hope for the future...
Between 1999 and 2001, it was stated clearly that frozen mammoth would never yield enough DNA to reconstruct a mammoth via genetic engineering.
In 2002, a Russian expedition recovered enough genetic material to state that they would make the attempt. Scientists made a conclusion, found contrary evidence, and changed their position immediately.
All I am trying to say is that there is far too much acceptance of bare facts without question in the modern world. As much as we do it, scientists are as well. Do you question this increase over time? If so, I'll point you at the general attitude of the renaissance scientists, compare it to the greek philosophers (the grandfathers of modern science), and then compare it to the modern day scientist. There's a lot less fundamental questioning today than there used to be.
In the example of the multiple lies as you grew up - granted it was wrong of them to lie, but how often did you question the fact and ask for proof?
Did you ask how Christopher Columbus, with only moderate experience at actually navigating on the sea, managed to lie to three whole ship crews of veteran sailors and captains who'd been navigating ships their whole lives and convince them they had not sailed as far as they thought??
