Скачать с ютуб Bad Methodology: Discrepancy Hunting in Non-biblical History в хорошем качестве

Bad Methodology: Discrepancy Hunting in Non-biblical History

Even non-biblical historical works should often be harmonized. That's just part of applying common sense to history. For the next few weeks I will talk about the epistemologically bad discrepancy hunting method and how it applies to non-biblical history. In this method, mere differences are often exaggerated into discrepancies. Then further these discrepancies aren't attributed to common human errors (like not remembering quite correctly what one of your sources said, or misunderstanding a source) but are automatically treated as deliberate. Then, further, these allegedly deliberate factual changes are treated as examples of a "compositional device," which "everybody" knew might be found in a document of this genre. All of this is wrong, and each one of these steps is open to very serious doubt. This week's presentation shows this discrepancy hunting method applied in a strained and strange way to a debate in the Roman Senate discussed by Plutarch in two of his _Lives_. Ever heard of talking points repeated by those who agree with one another in political discussions? Ever heard of one person making a motion and someone else agreeing with it? Of course. These are normal activities in political bodies. This insight could prevent the rather bizarre claim that Plutarch conflated two "logia" and "transferred" them (for no apparent reason) to another Roman senator. This playlist contains, among other things, my 2020 response series on my book The Mirror or the Mask.    • Mirror or the Mask response series   For more, read The Mirror or the Mask: https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Li...