How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye



The National Geographic article is newer than the decades old crystal one but is 6 years too old for the latest research. The person would not have known about the inaccuracies found after that date.

The AM exists and if you read the article I provided you would have noted that they felt a number of earlier machines would have been built, ie it was not a prototype. So please explain why and how you reject the arguments in the paper on it being made when they say and by who....since you won't read it this may be a bit of a challenge for ya.....

Ah, so you don't have a clue where it is from or when and your sole point here is deny all evidence - which you haven't read - about where scientific believe it is from....... okay anything else you'd like to deny before we move on?

lol

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Personal Knowledge trumps, peer review or credentials, in my most humble opinion.

For the person concerned, no doubt it does. Convincing others is not so easy.

There is no room in the academic pursuits for such ideas as "Imagination" or "Faith"... But some things by their very nature, if you wish to find the truth of them, must be followed using the above methods.

Are you saying that we must use faith and imagination in order to know about the past?

In 1978, I saw... 3 lights in the sky. Science nor historian could explain these visions. So I had to answer it myself as to what these manifestations were. I answered the question to my own personal satisfaction.

Who else saw these lights? How we you know you saw anything at all? Come to that, how do you know?

I have seen the truth of the light.

How do I know your 'truth' is not fiction?

Come to that, how do you know?

The Antikythera Mechanism as a example need only be dated by the ship it was recovered from, and its other cargo, no carbon dating required. Its date line is 50 BC to 400BC.

Who dated the ship and its cargo? How did they do it? Why do you believe them?

You have shown us now that you don't know very much about the Antikythera Mechanism, and have just made up a story about it to suit your own beliefs out of a few articles about it that you have read. That doesn't speak well for the credibility of any of the other claims you have made on this thread, I'm afraid. As Hans says, it's time to move on.

Thank you for your input. You have shown us, using a personal example, how dangerous it is to substitute faith, imagination and personal opinion for real knowledge and scholarship when trying to learn about the past. A very positive contribution.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

François Charette, a science historian at Germany's University of Munich, believes more devices like the Antikythera mechanism must exist.

"There has to have been a chain of development behind it," Charette said. "Otherwise it is like finding a high-speed 20th-century train without any of the earlier trains."

My comment about a 1000 years is his point. Where are all the prototypes, where are the little steps leading to this machine? The " chain of development"?

do you see the irony of calling someone else to task for imposing modern standards on bronze age tech yet your source is in and of itself doing just that? You're comparing modern railroad technology which utilized assembly lines and everything begat of the industrial revolution with non standardized and hand crafted cogs, gears etc... especially when those who have spent decades studying the AM agree that there were precursors and it was neither prototype or a singular one off.

"They" must have never counted on it being recovered........

and who exactly would "they" be? It just comes off as a tad disingenuous when someone refutes well documented evidence with nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

I will only offer a hint as to where it came from, or more exactly, from who. Apollonius of Tyana gives you the hint.

oooooooK...I'm rather curious to see how you tie in a 1st century CE philosopher with a mechanical device lost at sea at least a century prior to said philosophers birth.

a reply to: Hanslune

Sorry, didn't catch the link. I have reviewed it, and in particular section 2.4.2. Engineering. You put a smile on my face lol lol I needed that.

It is evidently the product of a sophisticated and mature engineering tradition and must surely have been preceded by a long history of development of similar devices.

I never denied this, now did I.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

It is evidently the product of a sophisticated and mature engineering tradition and must surely have been preceded by a long history of development of similar devices.

I never denied this, now did I.

You said:

Where are all the prototypes, where are the little steps leading to this machine? The " chain of development"?

As noted it is not believed it was the first. There is mention in Roman and Greek sources of mechanical devices that might be similar to AM but that is uncertain.

It is tribute to its builders considering the level of machine building and metallurgy they did have. The Koine speakers of that time did a very good job doing what they did but it is flawed both in theory and practice.

Do you concede that you have no evidence for 'another source' for the AM - or if you do you are unwilling to tell us?

a reply to: Hanslune

Additional information two mentions of Archimedes and a probable precursor to the AM

A learned man Pappus of Alexandra wrote of a paper Archimedes penned on the design of intricately geared planetary systems to replicate the movements of heavenly bodies, many decades before the Antikythera device was built. The paper was lost to history with the Library of Alexandria, but it's believed that Archimedes went on to build multiple prototypes of a machine extremely similar to the surviving relic.

Later in the first century B.C Cicero's wrote De Republica, that tells a story of Archimedes bringing a "celestial globe" machine to Rome's Temple of Virtue and demonstrating to the stunned Roman audience how it could describe the movements of the sun, moon, and the five planets. It could also predict solar eclipses and the lunar phases. The parallels are incredibly striking to the AM.

From his book De Republica chapter XIV (page 46 in translation)

The mechanism of this sphere, however, on which the motions of the sun, moon, and those five stars which are called wandering and irregular, are shown; could not be illustrated on that, solid sphere. But what appeared very admirable in this invention of Archimedes was, that he had discovered a method of producing the unequal and various courses, with their dissimilar velocities, by one revolution. When Gallus put this sphere in motion, the moon was made to succeed the sun by as many revolutions of the brass circle, as it actually took days to do in the heavens. From which the same setting of the sun was produced on the sphere as in the heavens : and the moon fell on the very point, where it met the shadow of the earth, when the sun from the region (the text is lost at this point)

The link

a reply to: AstyanaxI am sorry you feel that way, As Tyana X, truly I am.

One must also take into consideration the time and religion practiced in this time line. Not one person dared to delve into the Faith of these me who supposedly created this machine, the Greek Gods. Of course it plays no role what so ever in science what one believes to be true. But who was Archimedes? A man of God, or of the Gods!

look away all of you men of science. Do not consider it evenly remotely possible that these men believed in real Gods, ones that could do favors, or destroy a ship by a whim. Apollonius of Tyana admitted who he was. Again who was Archimedes! And what knowledge did he bring with him....

Who else saw these lights? How we you know you saw anything at all? Come to that, how do you know?

Who is the "We" you speak of. Well of course your speaking of everyone that will ever read this thread, correct??? Or might you be referring to the other bouncers sent in to quell the faith based insurrection. In time, it really doesn't matter.

How can I really know anything of the past? So true, only a person who lived back then and experienced the event could know for certain. But in the same token, only a person living back then, could say with any certainty "You got it all wrong", today. Technology was very advanced back then, wouldn't you say? Memory transference or reincarnation, a rose by any other name, is still a rose..........

For they say that he had of a certainty social intercourse with the gods, and learnt from them the conditions under which they take pleasure in men or are disgusted, and on this intercourse he based his account of nature. For he said that, whereas other men only make conjectures about divinity and make guesses that contradict one another concerning it,—in his own case he said that Apollo had come to him acknowledging that he was the god in person; and that Athena and the Muses and other gods, whose forms and names men did not yet know, had also consorted with him though without making such acknowledgment. And the followers of Pythagoras accepted as law any decisions communicated by him, and honored him as an emissary from Zeus, but imposed, out of respect for their divine character, a ritual silence on themselves. For many were the divine and ineffable secrets which they had heard, but which it was difficult for any to keep who had not previously learnt that silence also is a mode of speech.

www.sacred-texts.com...




Well, from the peer reviewed paper of the day, it appears as though those Mythical Gods were real, and quite capable of reincarnating, at will. But again, they are just a myth, right?

At this point I pray I haven't upset any of those Gods, or stepped on too many of their toes.

So to answer the question

How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

As much as the Gods allow us.

Now, I can move along. It has been fun, and quite rewarding.........

Reply to: All Seeing Eye

I am sorry you feel that way, As Tyana X, truly I am.

Cheer up. As I said, you made a positive contribution to the thread by your negative example.

By the way, if you've any pretensions to classical scholarship you ought to know what my name means and where it comes from. It has nothing to do with your Jesus-substitute, Apollonius of Tyana (who was never confused with Jesus anyway, but put forward as a pagan competitor to the Christians' Saviour, so I'm afraid you got that bit wrong too).

look away all of you men of science. Do not consider it evenly remotely possible that these men believed in real Gods, ones that could do favors, or destroy a ship by a whim.

Did the ship containing the Antikythera Mechanism show any signs of having been destroyed by a 'god'?

Apollonius of Tyana admitted who he was.

And who was he? Can you point to a passage in Philostratus, or any other ancient source, in which Apollonius claims to be a god, or to talk to gods?

Well, from the peer reviewed paper of the day, it appears as though those Mythical Gods were real, and quite capable of reincarnating, at will.

Your own source explains the origins of Philostratus's Life of Apollonius:

The literary and philosophic Empress Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus... put into Philostratus's hands certain memoirs of Apollonius, the sage of Tyana... These memoirs had been composed by a disciple and companion of Apollonius named Damis...

It is a third-hand, hearsay report of events supposed to have occurred more than a hundred years earlier, assembled from a source of doubtful provenance and produced for the amusement of a Roman Empress with intellectual pretensions. I wouldn't call the resemblance to modern peer-reviewed scholarship very strong at all. In fact,

The Life of Apollonius is not a biography in our sense. It is written by a professional orator who wanted to show that the divine Apollonius was above all a champion of the Greek culture and a wise philosopher... Philostratus' lack of interest in philosophy and his own preoccupation with rhetoric, make the Life a very unreliable source, as was already recognized by the (ninth-century) Byzantine scholar Photius. Source

Photius in Bibliotheca presents the content of Philostratus's work with open contempt for Philostratus's lies and inventions. Especially irritating he finds incredible absurdities, as he writes, contained in the description of Apollonius's adventures in India. Source

Worse still for the case you are trying to make,

Philostratus does not, however, assert that Apollonius worked any wonders such as legend ascribes to him; he merely extols him as leading a philosophic and temperate life, in which he exhibits the teaching of Pythagoras, both in manners and doctrine. Source

Dear oh dear...

Technology was very advanced back then, wouldn't you say? Memory transference or reincarnation, a rose by any other name, is still a rose.

No, I wouldn't say. Show us the evidence for 'memory transference' and 'reincarnation', then. Bear in mind that other people make things up too; as your source, Philostratus, says:

For they say that he had of a certainty social intercourse with the gods...

Philostratus himself doubts the story that he is retailing, but you have swallowed it whole.

Now, I can move along. It has been fun, and quite rewarding.

Godspeed. But before you go, here are three books you will definitely enjoy. I'm not being sarcastic; I mean it. You won't find them for free on the internet, though, so you'll have to buy them or borrow them from a library. Just bear in mind that they are fiction, not fact. Happy reading.

Soldier of the Mist

Soldier of Arete

Soldier of Sidon

a reply to: AstyanaxI have found another thread that may assist you in answering your question. I understand your position due to our u2u's. And I will honor your request.

The thread touches on "Other" avenues of knowing things from the past, but it will also give you "Personally" a opportunity to state your case. I do wish you might consider sharing your thoughts on these matters.
Of 10 highest IQ's on earth, at least 8 are Theists, at least 6 are Christians

a reply to: Astyanax

How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

Little less then half as you or anybody can know or would know about the present. Basically ask anybody what they would know of the present and the things going around them and in any parts of the world. And that is as good as an approximation on just how much you or anybody knows or is correct on what happened in any other given part of the world some hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some say you can never know the present if you do not know the past. Well the reverse is true as well, you can never know the past if you do not know the present. After all the material you have to work with and that was back then is still right in front of you...ie people, human kind. You can tell a lot more about a person by there facial expressions on any day then a whole catalog which is kept in file in computer somewhere which details there whole life can really tell you about them on any given day. History is merely a nice set of files, keept to make sure point A and point B match.

People merely like illusions and the illusion of control they like best, it gives them an anchor to which steady themselfs and cast there future out. There in lies the illusion, for they know not what they and there world is really anchored to they merely presume to know, and as long as the guy next to them agrees that good enough. And really that is all that is needed, general consensus.

Now if we ask anybody on why certain things are going on today, lets say why are people dying and killing each other in Ukraine today? How many different answers will we get? And of those many different answers which would be considered more correct? But the real question is which of those answers would be deemed more correctly acceptable, because those will be the ones which go down in history. And in all none of it matters, not the legions arguing on the internet or the tv, not the leaders in there pedestals, and not the educated in there lofty homes projecting the prices of oil in that part of the world, and I am quite sure many will die while we all argue and rhetoric about it. And like in all of history those that are right there, well there likely dead and soon, and the fog of the moment and there predicament would cloud there broader view and judgment anyhow, to say the least, and so what we are left with is merely occupying public opinion, one path of which and even in this small matter will be called history. Because for a majority history is but public opinion.


Ever play a game called telephone? Well draw that over Milena and you will get a better picture of what history is. In all like in the present its not about what or who is right or wrong, its about what a majority thinks is right or wrong, majority consensus in general is thought as correct, because any more though in the area would just be deemed to much work or rocking the boat of peoples outlook into the world of which they have solidified and cast there anchor upon. So yes! let's see all others who came before you have shifted through the evidence and came to some conclusion, and all that came after have sifted through that evidence and came to a bit different conclusion and such ad infinitum for all of history. Now who is right and who is wrong? In conclusion, its all just approximations on almost entirely false and convoluted information.

I dont think the question how much can we know of history even matters in the long scope or in any scope really, entire cities and peoples have died from a bit of misinterpretations then, and even today right now its happening. The human hive mind needs and craves solid ground to ground its believes in, and the most likeliest and easiest to believe theory is generally the most accepted. Ah but actual history is anything but solid ground, its more akin to quick sand, sometimes it even changes completely and overnight at the merest whim.

So what can you really know of history? The answer is off course as much as you can make a group of people believe they know, history however is ever revised, and generally based on popular believes or theories, of which will soon be forgotten, even if today somebody without a doubt proved to you or anybody about who shoot Kennedy you best believe it will all be forgotten by tomorrow if not a few hours after, generally such information while cool is meaningless in day to day productivity of any given person, only if your selling the book does it have any meaning. Some say its all half truths, but the truth may be that its more like quarter truths, to just straight up lies, to just popular believes amongst the groups that dally in such things, of which the rest of the populous merely nods its collective heads.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Hmm... interesting viewpoint. I disagree, of course. History is important because it teaches us lessons we forget or ignore at our peril. And truths about the past can be unearthed; if they could not, it is hardly likely that the professions of historian and archaeologist would be so respected, or have endured so long.

a reply to: Astyanax
Well people need jobs and hobbies. But its been proven time and time again that the only thing one can learn from history is that people do not learn from history. I can cite many things going around the world today which prove that, in fact right now, we even still have groups of people fighting over things which have gone on for ages, or over slights which happened long ago, and off course new wounds are added every day, even as I write this.

I quite expect it to go on for a while years to generations and generations, long after me or you are gone and our opinions are dust and history is revised again. As it has before. So yes I agree with you history is important, because everything in this world has a habit of repeating itself, cycles upon cycles, always repeating themself. But if you tell me that somebody can tell the entire lifespan and habits and habitat looks and practically everything of an animal or group of peoples that lived thousands of years ago or millions of years ago ie dinosaurs or prehistory.

Well if he or she can tell all that, then maybe they can accomplish something a lot more easier and tell us what and why and were exactly about some of the things which are going on here and now. Should not be to hard now should it? After all all you need to draw out a conclusion is not in some lofty corner of the bookstore, or in a pot underground almost dust, or in some buried ruins, its right in front of your nose day in and day out.

Till then, nice theory bro, it merits consideration in its capacity and subject, but nothing more. After all is this not how this science thing works? History and archeology is not so much as finding a needle in a haystack, as it is about looking at the world through the eye of a needle of which you stumbled upon while digging through a haystack one day. And for all they know there could have been thousands of needles in thousands of haystacks, all of which would have there own peculiar story on just how they got there in that particular haystack, and even after all that none of if could have any merit or meaning to the world of today.

If you want to know the world of today you study people, if you want to know the world of yesterday you generally study objects, generally one is tied into the other or vice versa. In general the world around you and its many objects change at a faster rate then the people would, in fact is it not proven that humans and the human brain size and everything have remained relatively the same since we moved out out of caves? Funny no! how while the world around us changes, humanity in general remains relatively the same with the same strengths and the same vices. Ah but if that were true what that means that if you somehow thawed a homosapien from some long lost age and he was in good health and conditioned he would likely be as smart if not more so then the average human walking around today after a few years of training and conditioning and indoctrination into to our environment and societies. But in seeing how hard tribal peoples have in integrating into society that can also be surmised to be a lie, and deduced that a human is merely the product of its environment and little more. And so that to while theoretically correct is flawed in many respects, so much so that its just a silly theory. In theory most if not everything works all nice an neat, however in real life even the simplest thing which worked in theory turns out to not work quite so well, or at all.

But anyways dude! Before I get even more carried off subject. I think you should carry on with your hypothesizing and theorizing and such. After all that to is but human nature, if not nature period.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

ut its been proven time and time again that the only thing one can learn from history is that people do not learn from history.

That is a cliché often articulated, but it is not true. The development of science and technology is the creation of an edifice built on past learning. In world politics, organizations like the United Nations, the EU and other multilateral institutions are the results of what we have learnt from history. The arts evolve continually, and their evolution is based on present-day responses to historical art movements and ideas. All of culture is learning from history.

I think you should carry on with your hypothesizing and theorizing and such. After all that to is but human nature, if not nature period.

Exactly. Even biological evolution is a kind of 'learning from history'.

a reply to: galadofwarthethirdI would like to add a couple of things.

1. History has only ever happened, one way, one time.
2. History is written by the winners.

But its been proven time and time again that the only thing one can learn from history is that people do not learn from history.

Yes, true to a extent. It all depends on who's history we are reading, the looser or winner.

We are never allowed to view the loser's account of historical events. Maybe, if we were allowed, we just might "Learn" something...

Excuse the interruption

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: galadofwarthethirdI would like to add a couple of things.

1. History has only ever happened, one way, one time.
2. History is written by the winners.

But its been proven time and time again that the only thing one can learn from history is that people do not learn from history.

Yes, true to a extent. It all depends on who's history we are reading, the looser or winner.

We are never allowed to view the loser's account of historical events. Maybe, if we were allowed, we just might "Learn" something...

Excuse the interruption

You can easily find the words of the defeated on the web; the other side from Great War, Napoleonic wars, WWII the Indian wars etc? The only time the defeated are completely mute is if they are wiped out or had not writing.

What exactly do you mean?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Here you go: sample of history as written by the losers.

There's mountains of this stuff all over the world. You don't see much of it because you're from one of the winning countries, but it's there all right.

a reply to: HansluneGreat point. I think its time to now do away with B.C and A.D and replace it with B.W and A.W.


In the BW, not much was shared if it did not have some propaganda value. For instance the fact that Hitler had signed a agreement with Zionists before WWII giving Jews Palestine, or portions of. This was never taught in school, that I know of. Hitler lost the war and all the reasons and priorities that were important for those choices were lost, until the web came about. en.wikipedia.org...

It is now in the A.W. we find out some of those missing bits of history. It is now that we have the best chance for seeing those bits of history that would otherwise be lost to ego and time.

Reassembly of a lost history is now at least a possibility.

(B.W. Before Web, A.W. After Web.)

I have a great deal of thought concerning the web, but that must wait for another time and place. One thing for sure though, The Alexandria Library would have been all for the concept of the Internet

a reply to: Astyanax

That is a cliché often articulated, but it is not true. The development of science and technology is the creation of an edifice built on past learning. In world politics, organizations like the United Nations, the EU and other multilateral institutions are the results of what we have learnd from history. The arts evolve continually, and their evolution is based on present-day responses to historical art movements and ideas. All of culture is learning from history.

Yes that may be so. And yet! Well lets just say it ain't quite working. Hey maybe the problem is that most of history is false or as some would say written by the winners or those with interests and agendas, and so we base our current solutions to current events based on false information to aquire solutions to problems by means which may or may not have meaning or be relevant. Do we now wonder why it sometimes just does not work like we thought it would?

There is a reason why the ancients warned about falsehood and half truths. Sure the truth may not be pretty to look at, but if you base your so called solution on half truth or plain false information if all of history was nice and pretty to look at. What is the likely outcome? And in the case of history. Who is right? And who is wrong? How do you decipher the truth when setting the truth being written down on paper has never been practiced, because lets face it people just do not want to hear the truth.

So yes all of culture is learning from history. And as such the world today is what it is. Should I act surprised when the same ol things come up again and again then? You know what? I think I will.

Exactly. Even biological evolution is a kind of 'learning from history'.

Looking at it purely on a biological scale may be better in some instances. Look at the world of today, things are just a clusterfunk of misinformation, most especially when looking and trying to gauge peoples or nations or things having to do with people. If you try to bring all that into the equation, your likely to miss the point entirely. And the point is that it matters little on any larger scale, what the opinions or believes of some peoples who will one day be dust is insignificant and more so, most of it is just muddied waters which the peoples and groups in question muddied on purpose, and you best believe all of that will go down in history as the truth. You see people have this uncanny ability to believe there own bull#, why there have been whole periods of time were people even believed and killed for nothing more then make believe which others have written down on paper.

Really what would happen if you steeped back from all that and looked at it all merely in terms of biology, a human group merely another animal wondering the wilds of this planet. Not unlike you would see on a wildlife program on the BBC or nature channel, people may be complicated, but there needs and there environment and there desires are not. If you look at it like that you will in some cases see more then if you were to try and jam in there every single meaningless detail of what one group or one person had and there idiosyncrasies. As a larger scope its quite possible to predict or even know what people would do in any given situation, in fact is that not what most historians do? They tend to try to look at it as objectively as they can without installing things which may or may not have been a factor, once you know the outcome because it happened you see its results, then you work backwards on why or how it happened based on simple facts of what a certain type of animal living in a certain type of environment would do.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
Like I said I do not think it matters. People see the history they want to see. In all like everything else it just may be a numbers game. That is, he who has the most numbers believing any variation of history is right. And really you should consider that is all of which it may be about, and that right and wrong is but a fantasy.

Winners and Losers, both have come and gone with the times. That is all.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Right. Do you have any answer to the question posed in the thread, which is asking how reliable are the statements we can make about the past based on historical and archaeological evidence?

So far, it seems to me that the answer depends on the statement being made. Not many of you seem keen on exploring that further, though. You're all too busy explaining why you think history is bunk.

That is not the topic of this thread.