9/11 Thread for advancedboy

[Echnaton]

History is a bunch of shit that happened. Why that shit happened requires a theory. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings does not require a theory to explain that it happened. Why they did what they did does.

History is the discipline of studying the past, near or ancient, and the idea that terrorist hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC buildings is a theory.  It is a narrative put together from the evidence of the event.  It also happens to be a well supported theory and while we can reasonably hold it tightly as the best accounting of actual events, new evidence could, convincingly, come to light that disproved it. So just like in science, we need to hold the theory tentatively.  That is what skeptics try to do.  Just because the HBs and CTs call there fantasies "theories," doesn't make them on par with actual historical theories.   

[gillianren]

The "why" of history may or may not respond to Occam's Razor, but the how does.  These are two different questions.  Phillip of Spain's Enterprise of England required sending a whole bunch of ships to start an invasion.  The technical details of how those ships got from Spain to the English Channel--and what happened to them once they were there--doesn't need flying monkeys or what have you.  Now, in determining why he sent them, you can go with the obvious--religion and politics--or throw in the added but unprovable motive, which I have, that Phillip was acting out of resentment that Elizabeth wouldn't marry him after her sister died.  That's the difference.

[ajv]

Queen: He shall prick that annual blister: Marriage with deceased wife's sister.
Peers: Mercy!
-- Iolanthe

[ka9q]

Why shouldn't the 'why' of history also be subject to Occam's Razor? True, we can never be sure what goes through peoples' heads and know exactly why they do what they do. Sometimes the people themselves don't really know. But we can watch what they do and pay careful attention to what they say. Sometimes they'll even come right out and state a motive.

You take all that, check it for internal consistency (people do lie sometimes), perhaps consult some psychologists and others who study human nature (in both its normal and pathological forms) and produce a 'why' theory that explains as much as possible. It might be harder to support such a theory than one explaining the 'what' or 'when' of history, but you can still try.

And I think it would be useful, too; many major man-made disasters (e.g., wars) and minor ones (e.g., unnecessary homicides in 'self defense') have resulted from people seriously misunderstanding the motives of others.

[gillianren]

But the simplest option is seldom the most likely to be correct, in many cases.  We are adding all kinds of things, not all of which make logical sense.

[SolusLupus]

Generally, there's no "one" reason for major events in history.

[ka9q]

Well, as Einstein was reported to have said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. That is, only those theories that actually fit the evidence can be considered, and then you choose the simplest of those as the most likely (but not necessarily the correct) one.

It doesn't matter if another theory is even simpler if it isn't consistent with the evidence; you can't consider it.

[SolusLupus]

Who do you accept as evidence in history?  What people write, based on their own perceptions?  Artifacts -- often which require at least some measure of interpretation?

There's a lot of leeway for different views on things, and it's often impossible to incorporate every piece of evidence without avoiding contradiction; so then you have to figure out who was lying, what artifact is out of place and why, etc.

There's no physics equation here.  There's no mathematical formula that you can verify data with.

[gillianren]

It doesn't matter if another theory is even simpler if it isn't consistent with the evidence; you can't consider it.

What I'm saying is that the best assumption with human emotions is that there is one reason per person for any group activity.

[Echnaton]

Who do you accept as evidence in history?

History is, at its best, a justifiable interpretation made from an examination of documentary sources.  There never is one final and undisputed version because new evidence is discovered and fashions of interpretations change over time.  And because historian have to have something to write about in order to publish dissertations, get tenure, and become full professors.  Mostly in history, I am told, you simply deal with what you can find, because it will never be a complete record.  Whether someone was prevaricating in a speech, letter or diary is always a mater of interpretation. 

[SolusLupus]

Let's also not forget that there's basically "microhistory" and "macrohistory" at all sorts of levels.

Examining a small community, a large community, or all of western Europe leads to different questions.  And then, for instance, you could ask what caused the Rennaissance; was it the increasing power of kings and military power of peasantry and the lessening power of nobles?  Or was it the printing press, which allowed for ideas (especially scientific and religious ideas) to spread uncorrupted by bad editors?  Or was it the Black Death, which depopulated the land enough so that peasants were more valuable than ever before?

The answer, of course, is a mixture of all of it, but then you can go on and on about how much of one mixture affected it vs. another mixture.

Talking about the history of a small town and the influences that change and alter it over time is much easier.

Then you get into talking about Ancient Greece, where 95% of the artifacts and books that would tell us about it were destroyed by the ravages of time, and we use the 5% to know anything...

Did you know there was more than one work on Troy?  I believe there were four in total.  We just have *one*.

[ka9q]

You could say that a forensic investigation - and the criminal trial that follows - is a historical investigation. You are, after all, trying to determine what happened in the past from the evidence available in the present.

And to the extent that the legal system considers intent relevant to the crime and the penalty (e.g., a premeditated intent to kill makes a homicide into first degree murder; simple recklessness with no intent to kill makes a homicide into involuntary manslaughter) then you do have to make a determination as to why the defendant killed. You have to determine the state of his mind, and you usually have to do it with without ever hearing directly from the defendant in court -- not that you could believe him even if you did.

Not that this process is 100% reliable -- it's distressingly far from that -- but it is one that's applied every day.

[SolusLupus]

A forensics investigation is very very focused.  The narrative it paints is a sliver of time, and the figure it unmasks is directly pertinent to the remains and artifacts involved.  It's the smallest of all levels, and as said, it's extremely focused.

Archaeology can tell us quite a bit of specifics about someone we find in the ice.  But then how do you tie the artifacts into the rest of his society?  With the average forensics investigation, we already know the surrounding society.

It's the difference between finding a single piece and needing to figure out what the jigsaw puzzle is, and having the whole jigsaw puzzle except for a few pieces.

[gillianren]

Intent is necessary to establishing a crime.  Motive is not, though juries like it.  The motive a prosecutor presents in a trial may or may not be the actual motive, because that part doesn't matter.  All that matters really is proving the how, which often proves intent all by itself; the why is speculation, and just showing that it's wrong isn't enough to prove that the person didn't commit the crime.  As I often say, I have motive to kill my mother, but that doesn't matter, because my mother is still alive. 

[ka9q]

Yes, I understand there's a legal difference between intent and motive, and that prosecutors are not required to prove motive though they often do because juries like it.

So that leaves the meaning of 'intent'. This has always been a slippery word because it involves getting inside the head of the defendant. In recent years there seems to be a trend to redefining intent as indicated by various actions that are observable, whether or not they really tell you the state of the defendant's mind.