How History is Done

How History is Done

For over seven years now I have used History for Atheists to debunk bad historical arguments, historical myths, pseudo history and fringe historical claims used by many of my fellow atheists. Long before I began this site and its attendant video channel and podcast, I have found myself debunking bad history and fringe claims used by ideologues of various stripes: Christians, Muslims, nationalists, fascists, socialists, New Agers and contrarians. After well over three decades of this (admittedly rather odd) pastime, I have come to understand that while a fixed ideology is often the reason these people argue for these bad ideas, the reason many of them come to accept these myths and nonsense in the first place is a fundamental misunderstanding of historiography. Essentially, they do not understand how history is done, so they cannot recognise bad historical claims.

Historiography

Many years ago, when I was a first year undergraduate, I had a conversation over breakfast with someone at my residential college. She was a Medicine student, so a highly intelligent person who had done very well at high school and been accepted to a multi-year degree to become a doctor. I mentioned that I wanted to go on to postgraduate study in either English Literature or History. She replied, “I’ve never been able to work out how someone could do a doctorate in History. I mean, how do you do original research on history?” Puzzled, I asked her what she meant. She replied, “Well, what would you write in your thesis? It’s just a matter of looking up what happened in a book. That’s not original research.” So I had to ask what “book” these things would be “looked up” in. She looked at me as though I were stupid and said “A history book, of course”.

So here was an intelligent and well-educated medical student who seriously thought that studying and analysing history was simply a matter of looking things up in “a history book”.

It took me some time to get her to understand that those “history books” were written by historians after finding relevant source material, analysing the information in them, assessing and evaluating conflicting information, filling in gaps and generally … doing what historians do. It was astonishing to me then that someone could genuinely not understand how history was studied or what historians do.

It is less astonishing to me now, given that over the years I have come across many people like my Med student friend. I suppose it is not too surprising, given the way history is often taught at high school level. There it often is just a matter of “looking it up in a history book” and then memorizing facts and dates. And given her academic specialisation, it is unlikely my explanation of how historians work was ever something she needed to remember.

But her level of naïve historiographical illiteracy is more of a problem when people who genuinely do not understand how history is studied and analysed decide to make forays into historical topics and even try to argue against mainstream historical consensus. Here, unfortunately, we find far too many of my fellow atheists. Over many years of online discussions and debates on the subjects I cover here on History for Atheists, I find that too many outspoken atheists are not only ignorant of history, but accept bad historical arguments substantially because they cannot see how or why they are bad. This is because they genuinely do not understand how history is done and so cannot tell bad history from good.

History and Science

I have often found that this confusion about how the study of history works can stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how history as a discipline differs from the hard sciences. After all many people (though certainly not all) come to an atheistic position from their study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history.  You can make hypotheses and test them in science – or at least you can in the hard sciences.  You can actually prove things, as far as anything is provable.  Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable.  If I claim light travels in a vacuum at 299,792,458 metres per second, someone can potentially come along and show, empirically, that I’m wrong. Compared to this kind of science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like and all claims are equally valid. So when some atheists say “you can’t PROVE Jesus existed” they often think this means the claim he didn’t exist is somehow equivalent to the claim he did and that there is no way to determine which is more likely than the other. In its more extreme naïve form, this misconception can lead to atheists who seem to think that no valid claims about the past can be made at all and that the whole enterprise of history is worthless and can simply be dismissed.

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, which has its own rules and methodology much as the hard sciences do. This does not mean it IS a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in “a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge”. But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how the sciences differ from it.

The hard sciences are founded on the principle of probabilistic induction.  A scientist uses an inductive or “bottom up” approach to work from observing specific particulars (“mice injected with this drug put on less fat”) to general propositions (“the drug is reducing their appetite”).  These propositions are falsifiable via empirical testing to rule out other explanations of the particulars (“the drug is increasing their metabolism” or “those mice are more stressed by being stuck with syringes”) and so can be tested.

This is all possible in the hard sciences because of some well-established laws of cause and effect that form a basis for this kind of induction. If something is affecting the mice in my examples above today, it will affect them in the same way tomorrow, all things being equal. Done properly, this allows a scientist to work from induction to make an assessment of probable causation via empirical assessment and do so with a high degree of confidence. And their assessment can be confirmed by others because the empirical measures are controlled and repeatable.

Unfortunately, none of this works for the study of the past. Events, large and small, occur and then are gone. A historian can only assess information about them from traces they may, if we are lucky, leave behind. But unlike a researcher from the hard sciences, a historian cannot run the fall of the Western Roman Empire through a series of controlled lab experiments. They cannot even observe the events, as a zoologist might observe the behaviour of a gorilla band, and draw conclusions. And there are no well-defined laws and principles at work (apart from in a very broad and subjective sense) that allow our historian to, say, accurately measure or even postulate the effects of the rise of the printing press or decide on the exact course of the downfall of Napoleon in the way a theoretical physicist can with the composition of a distant galaxy or the formation of a long dead star.

All this leads some atheists, who have fallen into the fallacy of scientism and reject anything that cannot be definitively “proven”, to dismiss the idea of any degree of certainty about the past. This is an extreme position and it is rarely a consistent one. As I have noted to some who have claimed this level of historical scepticism, I find it hard to believe they maintain this position when they read the newspaper, even though they should be just as sceptical about being able to know about a car accident yesterday as they are about knowing about a revolution 400 years ago.

Of course, all these are generalisations and the definitions of what is or is not scientific are actually much fuzzier than many in the sciences appreciate. We also have the fact that there are some disciplines in science which are actually a bit closer to the way history works, like geology or palaeontology. Finally, we have archaeology, which in many ways can be said to sit somewhere between history and the sciences. On the whole, however, history is a humanities discipline rather than a scientific one because it can rely far less on measurements, experiment and empiricism and has to depend much more on structured but subjective appraisals of likelihood.

Battle of the Books

The Historical Method

Just because history is not a hard science does not mean it cannot tell us about the past or cannot do so with a degree of certainty. Early historians like Herodotus established the beginnings of the methods used by modern historical researchers, though historians only began to develop a systematic methodology based on agreed principles from the later eighteenth century onwards, using the techniques of Barthold Niebuhr (1776-1831) and Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886).

The Historical Method is based on three fundamental steps, each of which has its own techniques:

1. Heuristic – This is the identification of relevant material to use as sources of information. These can range from the obvious, such as a historian of the time’s account of events he witnessed personally, to the much less obvious, like a medieval manor’s account book detailing purchases for the estate. Everything from archaeological finds to coins to heraldry can be relevant here. The key word here is “relevant“, and there is a high degree of skill and required training in working out which sources of information are genuinely pertinent to the subject in question. A great deal of innovation in history comes from a historian who brings a new source or category of sources to the analysis of a given question or issue.

2. Criticism – This is the process of appraisal of the source material in the light of the question being answered or subject being examined. It involves such things as determining the level of “authenticity” of a source (Is it what is seems to be?), its “integrity” (Can its account be trusted?  What are its biases?), its context (What genre is it?  Is it responding or reacting to another source?  Is it using literary tropes that need to be treated with scepticism?) Material evidence, such are archaeology, architecture, art, coins etc. needs to be firmly put into context to be understood. Documentary sources also need careful contextualisation – the social conditions of their production, their polemical intent (if any), their reason for production (more important for a political speech than a birth certificate, for example), their intended audience and the background and biases of their writer (if known or discernible) all have to be taken into account.

3.  Synthesis and Exposition – This is the formal statement of the findings from steps 1 and 2, which each finding supported by reference to the relevant evidence.  

The main difference between this method and those used in the hard sciences is that the researcher lays all this material, its analysis and their conclusions out systematically, but the conclusions are a subjective assessment of likelihood rather than an objective statement of probabilistic induction. This subjectivity is what many trained in the sciences find alien about history and lead them to reject history as insubstantial.  

But the key thing to understand here is that the historian is not working toward an absolute statement about what definitely happened in the past, since that is generally impossible except on trivial points (e.g. there is no doubt that Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889).  A historian instead works to present what is called “the argument to the best explanation“.  In other words, the argument that best accounts for the largest amount of relevant evidence with the least number of suppositions.  This means that the Principle of Parsimony, also known as Occam’s Razor, is a key tool in historical analysis; historians always favour the most parsimonious interpretation that takes account of the most available evidence.  

For example, regarding the existence of Jesus, it is far more parsimonious to conclude that Christianity’s  figure of “Jesus Christ” evolved out of the ideas of the followers of a historical Jewish preacher, since all of our earliest information tells us that this “Jesus Christ” was a historical Jewish preacher who had been executed circa 30 CE.  People have tried to propose alternative origins for the figure of “Jesus Christ”, positing an earlier Jewish sect that believed in a purely celestial figure who became “historicised” into an earthly, historical Jesus later.  But there is no evidence of any such proto-Christian sect and no reason such a sect would exist and then vanish without leaving any trace in the historical record.  And there is some evidence that this hypothesis cannot account for without convoluted and often highly fanciful interpretations that are simply too convoluted to be compelling. This is why historians find these “Jesus Myth” hypotheses unconvincing – they are not the most parsimonious way of looking at the evidence and require us to imagine ad hoc, “what if” style suppositions to keep them from collapsing. 

The Study of History

Ways Atheists (Sometimes) Get History Wrong

Managing this process of systematic historical analysis requires training, practice and a degree of skill. Without these, it is very easy to do something that looks a bit like historical analysis but arrive at flawed conclusions.

Take the initial heuristic process, for example. I have come across many atheists who don’t accept that a historical Jesus existed on the grounds that “there are no contemporary references to him and all references to him are later hearsay” or even that “there are no eyewitness accounts of his career”. So they rule out any evidence we do have referring to him on the basis that it is not contemporary and/or from eyewitnesses. But if we ruled out any reference to an ancient, medieval or pre-modern person or event on these grounds, we would effectively have to abandon the study of most pre-modern history: we do not have contemporary evidence for most people and events in the ancient world, so this would make almost all of our sources invalid, which is clearly absurd. Given that we have no eyewitness or contemporary sources for far more prominent figures, such as Hannibal, expecting them for a peasant preacher like Jesus is clearly ridiculous. No historian of the ancient world would regard this as a valid historical heuristic (see Jesus Mythicism 3: “No Contemporary References to Jesus” for more detail on why this is a flawed line of argument).

A more extreme and absurd error in heuristics is the idea that unless we can be sure a pre-printing source has not been changed, added to or tampered with (which we almost never can), we have to assume that it was and so reject it. So some try to claim that any ancient source that seems to contradict a point being argued can be ignored “because its manuscripts may have been tampered with by the medieval Church”. This is another absurd heuristic and not the way historians work with sources. Unless there is some indication a text has been tampered with or added to, historians work from the assumption the source can be trusted as it is. The assumption that all such texts have been adulterated is not a genuine heuristic and it really just a convenient tactic for dismissing inconvenient evidence.

Atheists can often make similar elementary errors in the criticism of sources as well. There is no shortage of lurid material on the horrors of the Inquisition, with whole books detailing vile tortures and giving accounts of hundreds of thousands of wretched victims being consigned to the flames by the Catholic Church. In the past, eighteenth and nineteenth century writers took these sources at face value and until the early twentieth century this was essentially the story of the Inquisition to be found in textbooks, especially in the English-speaking (i.e. substantially Protestant) sphere.

But much of this was based on sources that had severe biases – mainly sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant polemical material, usually produced in England which, as a political, religious and economic enemy of Spain, was hardly going to produce unbiased accounts of the Spanish church and crown’s use of the Inquisition. Uncritical use of this material gives a warped, enemy’s-eye-view of the Inquisition that has been substantially overturned by more careful modern analysis of the source material and the Inquisition’s own records. The result is that it is now known that in the 300 years of its operation in Spain, the Inquisition resulted in 3,000-5,000 executions, not the hundreds of thousands alleged by less critical nineteenth century writers. Basing an argument on the earlier, uncritical accounts of the Inquisition may suit many atheists’ agendas (and so can be found in remarks in the books of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), but it would be bad history nonetheless.

Finally, historical synthesis and exposition requires at least an attempt at a degree of objectivity. An analyst of the past may have personal beliefs with the potential to bias their analysis and incline them towards certain conclusions. Worse, these beliefs could make them begin with assumptions about the past and so make them select only the evidence that supports this a priori idea. Historians strive to avoid both and examine the evidence on its merits, though polemicists usually do not bother with this objective approach. All too often many atheists can be polemicists when dealing with the past, only crediting information or analysis that fits an argument against religion they are trying to make while downplaying, dismissing or ignoring evidence or analysis that does not fit their agenda.  Again, this is bad history and rarely serves any function other than preaching to the converted – see Catherine Nixey’s popular but heavily criticised book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World for an example of polemical pseuodo history based on carefully selected evidence.

In another example, until the early twentieth century the history of science was popularly seen as a centuries-long conflict between forward thinking scientific minds trying to advance knowledge and human progress but constantly being persecuted and suppressed by retrograde religious forces determined to retard scientific progress. Again, in the mid-twentieth century historians of science reassessed this general idea and rejected what is now referred to as the “Conflict Thesis“, presenting a far more complex, nuanced and well-founded analysis of the development of science that shows that while there were occasional conflicts, which were rarely as simple as “science versus religion”, religion was usually neutral on the rational analysis of the physical world and often actively supportive of it. Overt conflicts, such as the Galileo Affair, were exceptions rather than the rule and, in that case as in many others, more complicated than simply “religion” repressing “science”. The older Conflict Thesis view lends itself better to anti-religious polemic, so many atheists cling to it (or are not even aware historians have rejected it) and resist the more nuanced but less rhetorically useful modern perspective. But if we put aside polemics and look rationally at the evidence, the Conflict Thesis simply does not stack up as sound historical analysis.

The tendency of many atheist writers to show little interest in history per se, but rather to just use it as a quarry in which to mine examples (real or imagined) of religion’s faults and crimes leads to a highly distorted, usually skewed and often quaintly out of date picture of history. This is what historian Nathan Johnstone refers to as many atheist activists as “hunter-gatherers” of history, where historians are “explorers” (see Johnstone, The New Atheism: Myth and History, Palgrave, 2108). Explorers are interested in mapping and understanding the whole unknown territory of history. Hunter-gatherers simply range across it, looking for things that seem useful to their particular purpose. Historians seek to understand, to delineate nuance, to see things from multiple perspectives. Atheist polemicists begin with the point they want to make and will uncritically accept anything from history (or their imagined version of it) that seems to help them make it. This is why the way history is studied and the way atheist polemics are argued are often completely at odds.

Historian

History as Rationalism

We atheists and freethinkers regularly deride believers for their irrational thinking, lack of critical analysis and tendency to cling to ideas out of faith even when confronted by contrary evidence. Unfortunately, it is a lot easier to talk about being rational, and criticise others for not being so, than it is to practice what we preach. Everyone has their biases and “confirmation bias” – the tendency to favour information that confirms our prior beliefs – is an innate psychological propensity that is hard to counter, even when we are aware of it. This means that atheists can, in many cases, be as bad as believers in accepting appealing ideas without checking their facts, holding to common misconceptions in the face of contrary evidence and liking neat, simple stories over messy, complex and more detailed alternatives that happen to be more solidly supported by the evidence.

The idea that the medieval Church taught the earth was flat, that Columbus bravely defied their primitive Biblical superstition and proved they were wrong by sailing to America is a great story. Unfortunately, it is historical nonsense – a fable with zero basis in reality.  It is bad enough that I have had the experience of intelligent and educated atheists repeating this story as an example of the Church holding back progress without bothering to check if it is true.  What is worse is that I have also experienced atheists who have been shown extensive, clear evidence that the medieval Church taught the earth was round and that the myth of medieval Flat Earth belief was invented by the novelist Washington Irving in 1828, and they have simply refused to believe that the myth could be wrong.

Neat historical fables such as the ones about Christians burning down the Great Library of Alexandria (they didn’t) or murdering Hypatia because of their hatred of her learning and science (ditto) are appealing parables. Which means some atheists fight tooth and nail to preserve them even when confronted with clear evidence that they are pseudo historical fairy tales. Fundamentalists are not the only ones who can be dogmatic about their myths. One of the main reasons for studying history is to get a better understanding of why things today are as they are by grasping what has gone before. But this only works with a good grasp of how we can know about the past, the methods of analysis used and the relevant material our understanding should be based on. It also only works if we strive to put aside what we may like to be true along with any preconceptions (since they are often wrong) and look at the material objectively. Atheists who attempt to use history in their arguments who do not do these things can not only end up getting things badly wrong, but can also wind up looking as stupid or even as dogmatic as fundamentalists. And that is not a good look.

Further Reading

For a good introduction to the application of the Historical Method and how to avoid historiographical fallacies and pitfalls in analysis see Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Cornell, 2002)

A classic study on what historians are doing when they study and analyse history is E.H. Carr, What is History? (1961, revised edition, Palgrave, 2001). Carr’s approach was critically analysed by Sir Geoffrey Elton in his The Practice of History (1967, 2nd edition Wiley-Blackwell, 1991), while acknowledging the importance of Carr’s historiography. A more recent analysis of how history is studied, with reference to approaches and perspectives that Carr and Elton would probably not have recognised as significant or even useful, is John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (Oxford, 2004). Similarly, Richard J. Evans In Defense of History (Norton, 2000) responds to what he sees as an undermining of the study of history by late twentieth century postmodernism by examining the basis for what and how we can understand the past.

(Note that the article above is a revised version of one I published in 2013 on my former Armarium Magnum blog)

104 thoughts on “How History is Done

  1. Excellent article Tim!

    The only thing worse than atheists not even bothering to fact-check assertions and consult reputable sources to see if their grasp of history is adequate is when they rely on cranks. I have wasted time trying to reason with people who not only don’t know squat about history but actually rely on Richard Carrier as their sole source of information. This is despite the fact that even though Carrier has a doctorate in history, he’s clearly a bullshit artist. Yet these people don’t care enough to investigate anything carefully.

    13
    1
    1. But? Isn’t there some value in problematising history? Pointing out that even our most serious and disciplined reconstructions of the past, now and then get overthrown?

      1
      4
      1. There is a difference between doing that within the parameters of how history works and the kind of crackpot and silly theories Matthew is referring to.

        11
      2. Yes, but there is no value in refusing to problematise your own alternative. Jesusmythicists never even try. Thát’s why it sucks, not because they deviate.

      3. Yes, and occasionally theories in physics, biology and other hard sciences get overthrown, too. But that doesn’t make perpetual motion, creationism, or geocentrism respectable alternatives.

        14
  2. A great summary of how history is misunderstood and misused. An interesting adjunct to that is how serious historians have themselves let the atheistic presumptions of modernity limit their examination of past events. When I did a a paper on demonic possessions in Early Modern France, I found many explanations: feminist, modernist, Freudian, etc. None considered the supernatural. The modernist, D.P. Walker (Unclean Spirits, London, Scolar Press, 1981), explained, “Whatever their personal beliefs,historians should not ask their readers to accept supernatural phenomena.I think it is a sound principle and a widely accepted one, but I cannot demonstrate its validity. ”
    In my paper, however, I examined all the approaches including the supernatural. It was ,after all, the explanation accepted by most French people at the time, the 1500s, I.e. the Catholic ones. That’s because the demons allegedly in possession of the young women in question claimed the Protestants were working for them, the demons. While the different political, psychohistorical, and feminist takes on these possessions were all plausible, there was no historical evidence for them. And some evidence to the contrary. As for the supernatural, I argued, there was at least the evidence of the demons’ behavior, pitting Catholics against Protestants is consistent with what Satan would do: dividing his enemies.
    So I didn’t ask anyone to believe the supernatural explanation. I just examined it along with the others.

    4
    11
    1. Walker is right. The supernatural is, by definition, outside the purview of historians. Ask yourself if you would have seriously considered the “supernatural explanation” if the alleged phenomena came from a religious belief system that you happen to think is wrong and nonsensical. You have to leave your personal religious beliefs aside if you want to examine a historical situation with suitable objectivity. It seems you failed there.

      21
      2
      1. Its not a question of my personal beliefs. And when I ask myself your question, my answer is I would treat the supernatural explanation as I would any other. In terms of the 16th Century demonic possession of Nicole Aubrey, skeptics certainly alleged her levitation were stunts but they happened in front of audiences with many skeptics, ie, Protestants, but no allegations come down to us concerning who the tricksters were who helped her levitate or how they accomplished the deed. I’m saying an historian would simply note what I just did. Aubrey was imprisoned to get her to confess she was misleading everyone (the local prince was Protestant) but this did not succeed.Duly noted. My job as historian is done. I’m not claiming she was truly possessed.
        Further down another commenter, Charles, calls the miracles of Christ fictitious. What evidence is there of that? I’m saying a historian has no business assuming his miracles are fictitious because Science says so. As for Christ, they certainly provide one explanation for his popularity. Plus the gospels document them. The historian should assess the claims as any others. Charles again, below, claims Hume satisfactorily demolished miraculous claims back in the day. What do you think of that assertion?
        By the way, thanks for sending out your article. Brought me back to your great site. Keep up the excellent work.

        5
        16
        1. Its not a question of my personal beliefs.

          In part, it has to be. You can’t take all claims of supernatural events as being equally possible and to claim you do is simply not believable. as I’ve said in reply to Jacob Testa elsewhere in this discussion:
          “So the better path is for historians to leave the analysis of supernatural claims to theologians or parapsychologists and instead simply deal with the fact that certain people believed these claims were true and what that means in relation to the historical issues at hand. Secondly, the Historical Method is an assessment of likelihood. Even those who believe in the paranormal or supernatural have to admit these things are, at best, vanishingly rare. They are, therefore, always going to be – from a historical point of view – among the least likely explanations for anything. So they are best left to one side by the historian, who concentrates on the effect or implication of the belief of such things rather than some assessment of whether they happened.”

          22
          1
          1. But Tim, you, as an atheist, should have to set your beliefs aside too when addressing the issue I posed. On the face of it, you have not. While I do not see how any miraculous explanation can be endorsed by historians, I believe they should be examined along with others using the historical method, not rejected out of hand because modern science cannot explain them.

            15
          2. I’ve already explained to you why no historian can apply the historical method and also “examine” miracles. Historical analysis is about probability and even those who believe in miracles admit they are rare and so inherently improbable and therefore always the least probable explanation a priori. So the only way to deal with them and the only way to treat all miracle claims equally is to set the question of whether they actually happened to one side and deal with the things historians can analyse: like the effect of the fact some believed them to be true or the context in which that belief arose.

            14
        2. “I would treat the supernatural explanation as I would any other”
          How? What’s your method? How have you tested its reliability? How do you show that a supernatural explanation is more likely than “mental illness or fraud, or a combination of the two” etc.?
          Also thus far you have taken all your examples of events with a supposed supernatural explanation from our natural reality. How does it even make sense to use evidence (by definition natural) for supernaturalism? It’s a category error. While ToN doesn’t want me to call historical research science it does use methodological naturalism. It’s striking that theists and other supernaturalists always parasitize on it to “back” their explanations. You are no exception.
          I’ll stick with Kierkegaard. Supernatural explanations require faith. Science and (including) historical research doesn’t have any use for it. To acquire credibility you’ll have to develop your own methodology.

          13
          1. Sweeping generalization there about how theists always behave. I’ve explained how I would proceed. Look at all the documentary evidence critically. I actually said I found the psycho history explanation appealing. They don’t explain some paranormal aspects attending Aubrey’s so called possessions, which are consistent with the supernatural explanation. Plus, the anti Protestant statements from Aubrey which were attributed to demonic possession were consistent with the psychohistorical explanation Aubrey was internalizing France’s religious divisions, but also consistent with how Satan might behave ( pitting Catholics against Protestants). So, duly noted , job done, got an a plus from a licensed practitioner of the historical method.

            12
          2. Wow. I reacted to you. I use the word “you” multiple times. I quote you, nobody else. How that is supposed to describe “how theists always behave” is beyond me.
            Thanks for not answering any of my questions.

          3. Things done by religious persons – like the Crusades; the foundation of a religions as the official religion of a government – figure very, very large in objective history. And since “faith” and belief are a very major part of those in-part religion-motivated activities? Ultimately it seems historians will have to consider those topics.

            And in our increasingly scientific age? We might even dare to note how improbable or even flatly false countless faithful recountings of miracles were. Especially in instances where they were not presented as rare.

            Where for example, Jesus promised believers “all” and “whatever” they “ask” for. Suggesting you could ask for a giant miracle, say, right now, and get it. A very big promise that can very easily be shown to have been a lie.

            Just ask for a very big specific miracle. And specify that you want it here and now. Then carefully observe the results.

            If no miracle appears? Then beliefs that motivated huge segments of historical populations, turn out to have been false. Thereby affecting history in many huge and very adverse ways.

  3. Could I insert, after the Walker quote,
    Walker, himself, attributes the possessions in Early Modern France to mental illness or fraud, or a combination of the two.

    1. Dear Frank B. Here is your sweeping generalization:” It’s striking that theists and other supernaturalists always parasitize on it to “back” their explanations. You are no exception.” And what on earth is “it.”

  4. Great article. I read a lot of history but I confess to being uncomfortably close to your medicine student friend’s understanding of how those books get written – though not in the dismissive way she viewed it. Your explanation helped with that and no doubt Carr’s will too when I read it.

    I have experienced a lot people setting the bar below which they will ignore evidence conveniently high. Sometimes it’s merely a debating tactic, but other times I can’t help but notice how disproportionately it’s physicists, engineers and ‘hard scientists’ who will promote Creationism, say evolutionary psychology is all nonsense, deny climate change, deny basic supply and demand in economics and so on. I am being much harsher than you here, but it almost feels like most intelligent people are comfortable with a degree of doubt and uncertainty in the things that they know and unfortunately the hard sciences train some of them out of this correct approach to knowledge. Completely ignoring overwhelming or even just persuasive evidence is something most intelligent people have to be trained in, and the hard sciences do too much of that that by setting the bar for considering an argument so very high. I always know what is coming when someone says evolution or economics whatever isn’t really a science – with the implication it should therefore be rejected as nonsense. It feels like some people have completely abandoned any search for what can reasonably be believed to be true – which is what almost everyone else is really talking about when they discuss these questions – in favour of a specific definition of science that no historian, biologist or epidemiologist could reasonably meet.

    3
    2
    1. Engineers, since they personally are professionally engaged in literal intelligent design, can easily be lured into various forms of creationism as can medical doctors whose training has them see human bodies as collections of parts but does not actually give them a broad view of science as it’s essentially job training. But on what basis do you think physicists reckon heavily among creationists? Are you not aware that climate science is more than anything else a branch of physics? Are you not aware the first thing that gets drilled into physicists in their first lab course is that all measurements come with error and while you can use various techniques, physical and statistical to reduce the scope of such error to affect results, you can’t get rid of it? Have you never seen any but popular media reports of radiometric dating results? Because in an scientifically literate discussion of such things, dates are given +/- some amount. As Tim mentioned, the ‘hard sciences’ are awash in probabilities and statistical inference and those are not in the realm of certainty. If you read the scientific literature you will find it almost entirely devoid of certainty. The world of ‘hard science’ you describe simply does not comport to my experience of it, either at uni or in the ‘hard science’ aspects of paleontology and geology which is were my current exposure to ‘hard sciences’ is gaine.

      1. On engineers (and maybe doctors) and creationism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis
        I hadn’t heard that physicists tended to creationism, and I am skeptical (of course, AFAIK no one has ever presented conclusive data for the Salem hypothesis, either, even though I personally suspect there’s something to it).
        I’m also a bit skeptical that, outside of actual creationists, engineers reject evolutionary psychology. If anything, I think STEM types tend to be attracted to it, as a tidy explanation for anything and everything about human behaviour. It is, in fact, rather controversial within biology (depending on exactly what one means by evo psych).

      2. Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t really have much to say other than my mileage very much differs from yours, with ‘hard scientists’ often saying that other forms of knowledge aren’t real science, with the implication they’re all nonsense and can be safely ignored. The basis for this always comes down to uncertainty and the ability to test a hypothesis directly in a lab. If you can’t do that, it’s not real science and therefore junk. I think your series of “Are you not aware…?” questions would be better directed at them, to be honest.

        1
        1
  5. “She was a Medicine student.”
    Quite ironical. It’s medicine students who infamously need to memorize lots and lots of things – or look them up. Me having had a bad memory since I entered secondary school knew from the very beginning that was not for me.

    “This is because they genuinely do not understand how history is done and so cannot tell bad history from good.”
    Not to contradict you, but I think there is more to it. History always has been a fine propaganda tool. Given the western tradition of “spreading the good news” it’s not surprising that many unbelievers can’t resist the temptation to use it.
    Later edit: you address this at the end of the article.

    “differs from the hard sciences”
    If you mean the natural sciences, physics and chemistry often aren’t as hard as many people think. Accounting for inaccuracy not for nothing is a specialisation of physics. Augustus being the first Roman Emperor is a harder fact than the age of our Universe. Yes, this is trivial, but it’s relevant nonetheless.

    “at least you can in the hard sciences”
    It’s impossible to test a supernova.

    “this is only in the broader sense of the word”
    This broader sense of the word, which I accept as you know (hey, I’m European), also recognizes that historical research uses methodological naturalism. There is methodologically no difference between “protochristians believed that Jesus resurrected, we historians remain silent on the question if it actually happened” and “there is conclusive evidence for the Big Bang, we physicists remain silent on the question whether a creator god was involved”.
    As you know I’m not into semantics. What matters to me is that anyone who reads a few books written by professional historians quickly sees that their research is as rigorous as research done by physicists (like Ian Kershaw or Eric Cline). If you’re interested in a physicist criticizing her colleagues for not being rigorous enough I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder. Really, same difference. As I’ve written before, despite we not really getting along, it’s obvious that you’re a rigorous professional as much as any respected natural scientist.

    “none of this works for the study of the past”
    From the Big Bang via abiogenesis and evolution up to the oldest recorded history natural sciences study the past too and experience exactly the same issues. Those extreme atheist skeptics should be exactly as skeptical about the Big Bang etc.

    “has to depend much more on structured but subjective appraisals of likelihood.”
    This is the crucial difference between the natural sciences and the humanities (plus the social sciences). I merely think it insufficient to deny the humanities (including parts of theology) the label science. The reason is the scholars of humanity have developed methods to deal with this subjectivity, which increases reliability. You describe this yourself.
    Still don’t underestimate the role of subjectivity in the natural sciences either. Just look up the many interpretations of quantummechanics. Other examples are string theory and the multiverse hypothesis. The idea that physics is completely objective is overall a 19th Century idea – ironically this is pointed out by historians – that successfully has been exploited by especially physicists to their own advantage.

    “This means that the Principle of Parsimony, also known as Occam’s Razor, is a key tool in historical analysis.”
    The same in physics. String theory has lost popularity exactly for this reason.

    “who don’t accept ….. on the grounds”
    Were they serious they would reject the Big Bang too.

    “For a good introduction to the application of the Historical Method”
    For those who can read Dutch: Jona Lendering’s Mainzer Beobachter even has a category of articles called Methodological Monday.

    8
    1
  6. An excellent simple introduction to the correct practice of historical research, Tim. However, I fear that most of it will sail undisturbed past your intended audience.

  7. Hey Tim, I know that relying on scholarly consensus on history is important, but what about when it comes to supernatural claims such as the resurrection of Jesus. There are conservative scholars, liberal scholars, theist scholars, atheist scholars etc. Different scholars debate different claims made in historical texts because of their preconceived beliefs and ideologies, but how do we know who is right when it comes to the supposed supernatural claims? For example, there is a broad consensus that a historical Jesus existed but there is not a broad consensus when it comes to the different claims made about his life such as his supposed miracles or his resurrection. How are we able to know who is right when it comes to these situations? Since history is done through the process of methodological naturalism, do we accept the christian scholars or the non christian scholars when it comes to these situations? Or do we just assume a position of agnosticism on the subject?

    1. “how do we know who is right when it comes to the supposed supernatural claims?”

      That kind of claim is outside the parameters of historical analysis. Firstly, to use the Historical Method, historians have to try (emphasis there on “try“)to maintain a high level of objectivity. So unless they take all supernatural claims seriously, they aren’t being objective. So the better path is for historians to leave the analysis of supernatural claims to theologians or parapsychologists and instead simply deal with the fact that certain people believed these claims were true and what that means in relation to the historical issues at hand. Secondly, the Historical Method is an assessment of likelihood. Even those who believe in the paranormal or supernatural have to admit these things are, at best, vanishingly rare. They are, therefore, always going to be – from a historical point of view – among the least likely explanations for anything. So they are best left to one side by the historian, who concentrates on the effect or implication of the belief of such things rather than some assessment of whether they happened.

      Those assessments are better left to other fields. In the case of the alleged Resurrection, theologians.

      1. I understand what you’re saying Tim but shouldn’t supernatural claims still be taken into account by historians? The Historical Method, like you said, deals with likelihood but what if people like InspiringPhilosophy will argue that for example, the resurrection of Jesus is the most LIKELY explanation and that all the other NATURAL explanations fail to explain the historical data that we are presented with? And how are you able to determine whether or not miracles or supernatural claims are likely or not likely if we weren’t even there. It’s all a case by case basis and it’s an assessment of evidence to make a conclusion of likelihood but what if that likelihood IS a miracle or something supernatural?

        2
        3
        1. Again, because of the reasons I’ve given, the only way a historian can “take into account” supernatural claims is to note they have been made and that some believed them and to look at what that means. That InspiringPhilosophy guy can make his weak apologetic arguments that “the natural explanations fail to explain the historical data”, but a historian can’t make that argument. Because history is about likelihood and supernatural events are always, even if they exist, vastly unlikely events. Always. The assessment of whether a miracle actually happened is not something a historian can do.

          11
          1
  8. I can’t help feeling that the constant emphasis on the correct application of historical inquiry ends up being just a distraction. The stories about Jesus contain fictional miracles and a number of contradictions. Of course, this in itself is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is not historic, but it makes it significantly more difficult to plead for his existence. The fact that missing extra-biblical evidence is not an argument in itself, since otherwise a large number of ancient people would have to be denied the real existence, does not apply either. On the one hand, the expectation that one or the other contemporary would have had to mention Jesus cannot be dismissed out of hand, on the other hand, this argument about the lack of extra-biblical evidence plays an extremely important role, especially when it comes to Jesus. For should Hannibal be replaced by some nameless person, only historians would care. With Jesus it is different. A world religion stands and falls with him, even whole life plans and beliefs would collapse today. It would be a social catastrophe for many people. In this respect, I cannot find any plausible argument from this and other linked articles that makes the historicity of Jesus more likely. Here it seems to me more like the wish to be the father of thoughts. Finally, atheists who do not believe in the historicity of Jesus or do not see the corresponding evidence know very well that they can be wrong. It will never be 100% clear. Not even if Hannibal really existed.

    18
    1. The stories about Jesus contain fictional miracles and a number of contradictions. Of course, this in itself is not sufficient evidence that Jesus is not historic, but it makes it significantly more difficult to plead for his existence.

      No, actually, it doesn’t. Plenty of our ancient sources contain miracle stories and attribute the miraculous to significant figures. This is very common and historians deal with this fact in their source material all the time. What a historian does is accept that ancient people believed in the supernatural in ways modern people do not and saw the world differently to us. Then, taking this into account, they work with those sources to see what they can tell us. I have a whole article on why this objection to the existence of Jesus makes no historiographical sense – see Jesus Mythicism 8: Jesus, History and Miracles.

      On the one hand, the expectation that one or the other contemporary would have had to mention Jesus cannot be dismissed out of hand

      Who said anything about dismissing that kind of expactation “out of hand”? The problem is that the people who attempt this kind of Argument from Silence about the existence of Jesus either fail to even bother explain why a given source “should” have mentioned him or they make a weak case for this. The fact is that we have very few ancient sources on anything and almost none of them have any interest in people like Jesus. Jewish peasant preachers were not a hot topic among Roman historians. So the (few) attempts made to argue a given source “should” have mentioned him always founder on this awkward fact.

      With Jesus it is different. A world religion stands and falls with him, even whole life plans and beliefs would collapse today.

      This is a stupid line of argument. The fact that he became significant centuries later and is highly significant to millions now is completely irrelevant. That has no bearing on how much he would have been noticed and therefore noted back then. All the evidence indicates that he was highly insignificant in his time – a Jewish peasant preacher teaching Jewish peasants in region even other Jews considered a backwater. So to expect him to have more references to him than we have even for actually significant figures (then) like Hannibal is clearly absurd.

      I cannot find any plausible argument from this and other linked articles that makes the historicity of Jesus more likely.

      The bad arguments above show you need to think this through more clearly. And the criticism of the failed attempts at an Argument from Silence re Jesus doesn’t aim to argue “the historicity of Jesus is more likely”. It is simply showing why a common argument against his historicity is a failure. The arguments for his historicity are summarised here and, in video form, here.

      22
      2
      1. 1) Stories containing miracles and contradictions are less likely historical than stories containing details that can be shown by evidence are historically correct. Very simple, true and not at all stupid.

        2) On the one hand, the expectation that one or the other contemporary would have had to mention Jesus cannot be dismissed.
        This argument remains valid. (Forget about the “out of hand”, this was simply translated by Google Translate As I am not English-native I did not pay much attention to this.)

        3) With Jesus it is different. A world religion stands and falls with him, even whole life plans and beliefs would collapse today.
        This argument remains valid. Many (pseudo-) historians, theologians etc. stick to the historicity (consciously or non-consciously) because jesus “must” have existed.

        4) I cannot find any plausible argument from this and other linked articles that makes the historicity of Jesus more likely.
        No need to think it through more clearly, all thought clearly already.

        Overall, I can’t help feeling that the constant emphasis on the correct application of historical inquiry (and hereby the historicity of Jesus) ends up being just a distraction. But, have said that already. And Tim’s reply does not contain any convincing counterargument. Maybe he should think that through more clearly… (sorry, now I am taking the same stupid tonality)

        17
        1. 1) Stories containing miracles and contradictions are less likely historical than stories containing details that can be shown by evidence are historically correct. Very simple, true and not at all stupid.

          Too simplistic. Again, we have plenty of “stories containing miracles and contradictions” about all kinds of people in the ancient world, including several who we are pretty certain existed – e.g. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus etc. So we can’t rule out the existence of someone simply because there are “stories containing miracles and contradictions” told about them.

          On the one hand, the expectation that one or the other contemporary would have had to mention Jesus cannot be dismissed

          Yes, it can be. We have no contemporary reference for most ancient figures. More importantly, we have none at all for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or Messianic claimants that we know about. So we have no reason at all to expect any for this one. Name a source that you feel should have mentioned Jesus but doesn’t.

          With Jesus it is different. A world religion stands and falls with him, even whole life plans and beliefs would collapse today.
          This argument remains valid.

          That is totally irrelevant to how much evidence we should or should expect there to be for him back in the first century. The beliefs people have come to hold about him later is not relevant to how much evidence there is for him at that time. You’re really confused.

          Many (pseudo-) historians, theologians etc. stick to the historicity (consciously or non-consciously) because jesus “must” have existed.

          That may be true. But many other scholars have come to the conclusion he most likely existed based on the evidence, not on any assumption.

          I cannot find any plausible argument from this and other linked articles that makes the historicity of Jesus more likely.
          No need to think it through more clearly, all thought clearly already.

          You may think you’ve thought it through, but it appears you haven’t. Paul mentions meeting Jesus’ brother and having an argument with him. Josephus refers to the execution of the same brother. Non-existent figures can’t have historically attested brothers who someone has personally met. Historical figures can and do. So if you seriously think he didn’t exist, you’ll need to explain how he didn’t exist but his brother James did. Can you?

          Overall, I can’t help feeling that the constant emphasis on the correct application of historical inquiry (and hereby the historicity of Jesus) ends up being just a distraction.

          A “distraction” from what?

          But, have said that already. And Tim’s reply does not contain any convincing counterargument.

          Counterargument to what?

          14
          1. 1) Discussion would be easier if you read my comments properly (minimum requirement for “academics”). Your example to Alexander. The Great, Caesar, Augustus etc. makes no sense for 2 reasons. a) I have never claimed that the miracles and contradictions of the gospels are sufficient evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. But it is a very strong indication, even though not sufficient on its own. b) To first name a historical person (here Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus or Trump, Kennedy etc.) whose historicity is not shaken by any miracle stories is not an argument.
            2) Furthermore, of course it makes a difference whether you have no (extra-biblical) sources on Jesus or on any other person. Because not every person for whom you have no sources is ultimately as crucial as Jesus. Whether there were “other” people really historical may have had less of an impact on the course of history. For those, simply one may be satisfied with less evidence.
            Since there are e.g. no coins with Jesus’ name or any other relic that could be assigned to him, but only the 4 fairy tale stories, then the burden of proof lies more on those who claim his historicity. You asked for an example: I would have expected more than a few notes / passages (the authenticity of which can also be very much questioned) from Josephus in his extraordinarily thick work. There are many others who not even have mentioned anything about Jesus.
            3) That “world religion stands and falls with him” is not irrelevant at all, for theologians for centuries have dominated discussion and belief regarding Jesus’ historicity, so the general public (and I believe you too, among other aspects below) is strongly prejudiced in order to ultimately judge this question only on the basis of evidence.
            4) So, his brother James existed because Paul, whose existence is of course certain, mentions him in his of course ‘historically authentic’ letters? And because then also the historian Josephus, who, as we have all already suspected from his historically correct Jesus passages, also testifies to the brother… boom, then we have the historicity best of all three, but at least of Jesus, proven. You have to laugh yourself, don’t you?
            5) A “distraction” from what? Strange question, from the fact that there is no real evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

            Last but not least, you just like to label others as “confused” or the comments as “stupid”. All I can see in your comments is the excited attitude of a 5-year-old wannabe historian, happily thrashing around with pompous claims and pretending to adhere to scientific methods, trying to take a stand against a group of people (Mythicists) who admittedly have startling evidence against the bimillennial mainstream.

            20
          2. Discussion would be easier if you read my comments properly

            What makes you think I’m not reading them “properly”?

            I have never claimed that the miracles and contradictions of the gospels are sufficient evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. But it is a very strong indication, even though not sufficient on its own.

            Lucky for me, I didn’t say you did claim they are “sufficient evidence for the non-existence of Jesus”. I fully understood you to be saying they are “a very strong indication” he didn’t exist. And I’m explaining to you why that is not correct.

            To first name a historical person (here Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus or Trump, Kennedy etc.) whose historicity is not shaken by any miracle stories is not an argument.

            Great, but that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m noting that because we have miracle stories told about both historical and likely mythical figures, miracle stories don’t indicate historicity or otherwise either way.

            Because not every person for whom you have no sources is ultimately as crucial as Jesus.

            How many times do I have to explain to you that the fact he became “crucial” centuries later is totally irrelevant to how much evidence we should expect to have for him from around his time?

            Since there are e.g. no coins with Jesus’ name or any other relic that could be assigned to him, but only the 4 fairy tale stories, then the burden of proof lies more on those who claim his historicity.

            This is wrong. We have at least one reference to him in Josephus and one in Tacitus. And we have Paul’s references to meeting his brother. Then we have elements in the gospels which are clearly very awkward for the gospel writers (e.g. him coming from the wrong town for a Messiah), which indicate these elements are historical. This is why it makes most sense that he existed.

            So, his brother James existed because Paul, whose existence is of course certain, mentions him in his of course ‘historically authentic’ letters?

            Yes. It is. It’s in Galatians, which scholars agree is one of the seven authentic letters of Paul. And are you now trying to claim that Paul didn’t exist? Why were people writing letters in his name to get the authority of his authorship if no Paul existed in the first place? You really are getting yourself into some silly tangles.

            I would have expected more than a few notes / passages (the authenticity of which can also be very much questioned) from Josephus in his extraordinarily thick work.

            Why? All the other preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants he mentions are also only given ” a few notes / passages” too, so where is the problem? And while there is a debate about the authenticity of one of his mentions of Jesus, the other is accepted as genuine by almost all scholars.

            There are many others who not even have mentioned anything about Jesus.

            Really? Who? Please list these “many others” who talked about Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants but didn’t mention Jesus.

            That “world religion stands and falls with him” is not irrelevant at all

            It is totally irrelevant to the question of how many sources we should have for him from back then. How important he became centuries later has no impact on how noticed he was then. What part of this very simple concept are you struggling to grasp?

            And because then also the historian Josephus, who, as we have all already suspected from his historically correct Jesus passages, also testifies to the brother… boom, then we have the historicity best of all three, but at least of Jesus, proven. You have to laugh yourself, don’t you?

            Pardon? Trying some weak sarcasm isn’t actually making an argument. Paul didn’t meet James? Okay – explain Galatians 1:18-19 then. Josephus was wrong that James was the brother of Jesus? Okay, explain why Josephus would be wrong about this when he was a contemporary of James, lived in the same city, was there when he was executed and was politically connected to the circumstances of that execution. Try making an actual argument and let’s see how it stands up to scrutiny. Good luck.

            All I can see in your comments is the excited attitude of a 5-year-old wannabe historian, happily thrashing around with pompous claims and pretending to adhere to scientific methods, trying to take a stand against a group of people (Mythicists) who admittedly have startling evidence against the bimillennial mainstream.

            I think we’re getting close to the point where you can go rant somewhere else. You’ve totally out of your depth here and your best move now would be to give up and go away.

            30
            1
      2. You know, it would be nice if you’d apply your “method” to say Diogenes of Sinope. For some reason pseudoskeptics like you never do, which turns your case into special pleading. Ironically your

        “I can’t help feeling that the constant emphasis on the correct application of historical inquiry ends up being just a distraction”
        hits you like a boomerang. It strongly suggests that you like your logical fallacies too much.

        13
  9. This explanation of what historians do is necessary and appreciated. The job is difficult. Thank you for describing it so well.

  10. Rather useful summary of the issue! It explained it even using terms that I as a history student was not aware of (heuristic etc). When it comes to the validity of pre-printing sources, I think historians should point out that the rare survivals we do have from Antiquity tend to correspond very closely to the copied manuscripts

  11. Once again, I find myself wishing I’d added history component to my degree (no, I’m not doing another degree, I have other projects).

    As I believe I have lamented here before: skeptics generally have no trouble deferring to the appropriate expert on a scientific question. There’s a recognition that, here is a body of acquired knowledge, and if you don’t want to sound like a fool, you’d better sweat the details or let someone who has do the talking. Why is there not the same attitude towards history? It’s an equally empirical field, even if the methodologies differ. Even philosophy seems to get more respect.

  12. Hey Tim, i am a catholic from Brazil, big fan of your work as a historian, i got knowledge of your work when a Christian apologist that I follow Said that you are The most honest historian of The historical jesus, yes he said that, i thank you for your work destroying mythcism and others stupid things that some atheists do. Even Reading your skepticism with somethings, my faith is stronger, i don’t agree with you many times, but i really aprecciate you, you are a Very Nice person and you deserve more fame than any mythcist. Godspeed man

    16
  13. Yes, a good explanation of historiography, but also an illustration of why historians need to take care when referring to science, particularly the hard sciences. FrankB in a comment has alluded to this without really explaining why.

    First, a minor factual point. You say “Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. If I claim light travels in a vacuum at 299,792,458 metres per second, someone can potentially come along and show, empirically, that I’m wrong.” Actually only your first sentence is correct and reflects Karl Popper’s distinction between science and pseudoscience. Since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the speed of light, having been previously been defined since 1960 in terms of the number of wavelengths of a certain transition of krypton-86, and before that by artifacts, initially a platinum bar and later a number of platinum-iridium bars. It was the improvement of accuracy of measurement and hence the realisation that the artifacts were not completely stable that led to standards based on fundamental physical constants.

    Now Popper’s falsificationist approach to science, while better than the Vienna Circle’s verificationist approach to science, suffered from some drawbacks. In practice, scientists did not simply throw away their theories when falsified, but modified them. Einstein, most famously, adding the Cosmological Constant to his equations of General Relativity when he thought it was necessary to ensure a static Universe and then throwing it out again when experimental evidence for the expanding universe was discovered. Imre Lakatos, one of Popper’s followers, extended Popper’s ideas to cover what he called ‘research programmes’ which consisted of a hard core of irrefutable theories, surrounded by auxiliary hypotheses that could be replaced if in disagreement with experiment (see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Imre Lakatos).

    At the same time another follower of Popper, Paul Feyerabend, argued that there was no such thing as a “scientific method” but rather a series of methods that scientists used to create their theories. (Again read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Paul Feyerabend). In practice, looking at how science works one can find examples that support both Lakatos and Feyerabend, but it can be difficult to explain these to non-scientists, and neither Lakatos nor Feyerabend could convince the other during their lifetimes. There is in addition Thomas Kuhn’s idea expressed in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (also in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) where outside of revolutions, “normal” science follows the Lakatos approach.

    So science, even the ‘hard sciences’, is not really as rigid as non-scientists think. Add to this, the replication crisis, which started in the softest of sciences, psychology, but has not stopped spreading since as more scientists have realised that a considerable proportion, perhaps a majority of papers published in peer-reviewed journals cannot be replicated. Sometimes there is unconscious bias; a prime example was the measurement of the charge on the electron by Robert A. Millikan. We now know that his experimental results were too low, but it took decades for the accepted value to creep up to its modern level and Richard Feynman used it as an example in one of his commencement addresses. Even now, a major limitation on replication comes from grant funders refusing to pay for experiments that replicate previous results, even where these are preparatory to experiments that extend the range of parameters over which a property has been tested, as well as journals that refuse to publish replication results on the grounds that they are not new.

    But finally to turn to an area where historians can learn from scientists. Stylostatistical analysis is a powerful tool that can be used to pull out correlations in different documents that indicate a common author or that a nominal author did not write all or part of a document. In Biblical studies it has been used for showing that the Pastoral Epistles were almost certainly written by someone other than the writer of the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians, but has been little used otherwise in Theology. It is a tool that all historians should have available and know how to use for when it is needed.

    1
    1
    1. I’m well aware of all that and, if you look, I made several caveats about the fact the sciences aren’t as rigidly and solidly founded as many often think. But the point I was making was about some epistemological and methodological differences between what scientists and how they do it and what historians do and how they do that. To go off on a long digression about the philosophy of science and the differing ideas about the foundations of the scientific method would not have been a useful thing to do in an article that is about historiography. So I didn’t do that.

      7
      2
      1. You should not really be surprised if you lose respect from scientists by doubling down and admitting that you already knew that the speed of light was fixed by the definitions of the metre and the second, but assuming that your readers did not, when any reputable scientist would have said, sorry my mistake, I chose a bad example to explain falsifiability. You could quite easily have added a single sentence to your original posting directing readers towards the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its articles that I referred to, hardly a long digression.

        As someone who has graduate-level qualifications in both Science and Humanities subjects at top English Universities, I am quite familiar with the differences in approach, but if you want to move people away from their New Atheist ideas towards a more nuanced Atheism, you really need to ensure that your science is spot-on.

        14
        1. Again, I make the fact that things are not cut and dried in the sciences either pretty damn clear with sentences like “Of course, all these are generalisations and the definitions of what is or is not scientific are actually much fuzzier than many in the sciences appreciate.” If you feel more needed to be said or this point needed to be made in a different way while still keeping the focus on historiography, write your own fucking article.

          21
          3
  14. Overall a great article, but I cringe at the hunter-gatherers vs explorers analogy. It flies in the face of what anthropologists and historians tell us about the real activities of actual hunter-gatherers and explorers.

    I think we would do better to reverse the analogy. Historians are like hunter-gatherers, using deep knowledge of their environment and familiarity with the terrain to identify suitable resources for different purposes and use them in ways that respect the integrity and sustainability of their sources. Atheist activists are like explorers, barging into territory they know little about and ransacking it to support an outside agenda.

    12
    1
  15. Coming from a focus on history-meets-art, I have to treat evidence of belief as historical evidence and though I say the next bit expecting to have my head bitten off, I must treat the the fact of belief – not just the fact of “religion” or of “the church” as historical fact the influence o which was profound. I simply cannot see how anyone with a pronounced aversion to Christianity, for example, can possibly study western Europe’s medieval centuries with the aim of creating a history or a history of art for it. One thing you didn’t mention (and I understand why) is quite important for reading medieval images accurately. For want of a better term I’ll call it informed empathy or a non-tourist approach to people of ‘other country’ … to use again a brilliant but now sadly overused passage.

    1
    3
  16. I’d love articles on the inquisition and the witch trials in general. I have always had the sense the common ideas around those events seem suspicious.

      1. I think Hume’s argument from probabilities is racist, using race very loosely. He really means only untrustworthy barbaric cultures claim miracles. What he means is Catholic ones. So Lourdes has a medical committee to examine miraculous claims for natural explanations. When they find none they say so. Medical method.Over a century there’s been a couple of dozen. A new one just happened. Fatal brain tumour disappeared. Just saying.

        1. Sorry, but when an amputee goes to Lourdes and comes back with their limb regrown, we can talk about actual “miracles”. While the ones there and all other religious miracle claims remain weirdly selective about what is and isn’t able to be “miraculously” cured, I think I’ll stay highly sceptical. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who was amused when the shrine at Lourdes had to close down during the pandemic. Wouldn’t the Virgin have protected the believers from Covid? Oh, they of little faith!

          7
          1
  17. I guess since this article is on the topic of historiography, this might be a relevant question. Is relying on books the only way to obtain accurate information about history? Since I’m still in school, my history class is still in the “baby” faze, as I like to call it, where my professor just gives us facts and dates to memorize for a quiz or a test. I’ve heard that encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) or online articles or textbooks are good too, but only if they list or give their sources in a bibliography or something. Would you say this is accurate Tim? Most of the sources you give on your articles are books, usually introductory, and so are useful but do you think that textbooks (like the ones in schools) or encyclopedias etc. are useful as well or are they unreliable? And by “books” I mean SCHOLARLY books, which is probably what most people, if they’re on this site, think about when they hear the word “book”.

    1. What you see in textbooks and encylopedias is not history as a field of study but (at best) the results of that study.

      If you wanted to get an idea of how you can learn about history other than by reading books, you could try doing some historical research of your own. You could dig into the history of the town where you live (or a nearby one) using things like land registry records, census date, municipal records, newspaper archives, local llibraries that may house historical collections. Those are resources historians use themselves. It would help if you could think ‘I wonder how long that building has been there.’ Unless it is an notable building (notable enough to make it into Wikipedia), that’s probably not sitting in a history book or encyclopedia and there might be nobody alive who knows the answer until you come up with it.

      I know a guy who is a historian (though not credentialed) of the American civil war, currently working on and account of Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign and he spends a good part of his time visiting libraries that house old newspapers and things like soldiers’ letters to get details that are not in any book yet or that provide context for things he will present in his books.

  18. Hi Jacob,
    I am not a historian but relying on books is not the only way to obtain accurate information about history, it may not even be the best.

    To write a history book the author must find the materials that they can use to write the book, usually called original sources. Let’s say you want to talk about an English military campaign in Wales in the 13th C. How may troops were there? Maybe you can check pay records in London. Maybe you can look at contemporary letters about the campaign. In some cases you could even visit the areas and assess the landscape to see if the prevailing story makes sense.

    If you are not a trained historian, then books and articles are the best way to obtain information about history, however it can be a good idea to check more than one book and to check book reviews. As Tim has shown here, some “history” books are closer to fantasy than fact.

    1. Lots of that is pretty good advice generally.

      But?

      It’s awfully hard to get original sources from 35 AD, say. If you are an archeologist it’s still hard. If you do find something? Then it’s so difficult and detailed getting it, and so narrow, it’s better to cover it in an article; or a scholarly monograph.

      Later, somebody can take a hundred of those articles, and more, and assemble them into a scholarly book maybe. A book with about 500 references, say. Many of which don’t fully agree with each other on everything.

      Tim once did a post on the date for Christmas, based in part on a pretty good article. But then other articles begged to differ.

      History ain’t as easy or as clear as it looks, sometimes.

      1. Tim once did a post on the date for Christmas, based in part on a pretty good article. But then other articles begged to differ.

        What other articles? By who? Citations please.

      2. Perhaps an example would help: a couple of years ago I audited a course on Medieval Europe. We had a textbook, Barabara Rosenwein’s _A Short History of the Middle Ages_. But we also had the companion volume _Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World_, which contains documents from the actual time (more or less): proclamations of various monarchs and Church officials, founding charters of monasteries, everyday census and land ownership records, biographies of saints and other notable persons (those to be taken with a grain of salt, to be sure — but even a 10th century partial fiction about a 7th century saint tells us something about what 10th century people thought was important).

  19. Wow. Being a good historian is harder than it sounds! I’m starting to realize I’m not exactly a natural at it. Thanks for the hard work.

  20. Joshua, in the present intellectual climate the most difficult part of being an historian today seems to be the “without fear or favour” part. Too many writers are producing books about medieval history that are little more than extended versions of a ‘who you must hate’ sermon and cries for a society in which all non-believers in atheism would, ideally, be treated as were too many religious minorities in medieval Europe. I like indifference towards religion; it’s even nicer than ‘tolerance’.

    2
    2
    1. There may be more justification for allegedly biased approaches than you might think. I often do History using an “interdisciplinary” approach. Bringing into History new findings in Anthropology, Culture Study, and Linguistics, particularly. In that broadened historical perspective? It becomes easier to spot, say, class conflicts, biases, manipulations, in some historical “winners”, conquerors. Including religions. And even the ultimate religion: allegedly objective historians.

      To be sure, many historical writers do have an axe to grind. Still? Maybe we should look for biases in everybody; all historians included.

      1
      4
  21. I don’t know if what i’m going to say is in line with the topic, but recently i saw a video of medieval makeup in which the title said “historically accurate”, and at some point in the video the girl said “In medieval times, smooth skin was highly coveted. If you had freckles, they were considered the mark of the devil and associated with witchcraft”… Well it’s not the first time i see someone talking nonsense about makeup in the medieval period. Not long ago, an audio on Tiktok went viral that said that the church forbade wearing red lipstick because it was a mortal sin. What bothered me was the fact that it said it was “historically accurate” and simply didn’t cite any sources (at least i couldn’t find any in the video description, i didn’t bother watching the whole thing after seeing where the video was going).
    Anyway it seems that fonts don’t matter as long as you are creative enough to come up with a story that will please others… By the way since i mentioned “medieval makeup” do you have any book recommendations on makeup in the middle ages? I guess it’s not something New Atheists often ramble on about, but I’ve seen a lot of talk about this lipstick ban thing (on the other hand, this is the first time I’ve seen anyone talk about freckles).

    1. The history of make up is not really a topic I know anything much about. But ‘the medieval church banned lipstick” sounds like total bollocks to me.

      1. Oh no. “Makeup” was not the point of my comment 😅
        I spoke about the makeup video just to bring an example of how people don’t mind showing sources for what they say even if they say that what they say is “historically accurate”.

        1. The mentioning of makeup though, styles, does 1) sometimes occur in critical Art Historical attention to say, Renaissance and Elizabethan paintings – and social trends.

          But maybe 2) more central to advanced historians and historiography, was the c. 1984 The Great Cat Massacre. Which in effect broke new ground in the field of history. By authorizing the study of superficially minor subjects – as however offering illumination into major subjects. A strange cat massacre offering insight into into the French Revolution, say. Or the archeological discovery of pork bones in some Israeli villages, telling us about ancient Israeli demographics..

          Following these very, very influential methodological expositions, historians began to be more accepting of data from “minor” traditions. Pursued by “interdisciplinary” (q.v.) historiography. Which in effect had rediscovered whole new layers of evidence, lying unexcavated beneath major but imperfectly recorded historical events.

          2
          3
          1. John what you said sounds interesting. Do you have any indication of a book/article that talks about medieval makeup or that mentions this claim that freckles were associated with witches?
            Thanks for the comment!

    2. What bothered me was the fact that it said it was “historically accurate” and simply didn’t cite any sources

      Sounds like some TikTokker’s pseudosophisticated take on “trust me, trust me”. But Dan Brown did a similar stunt before: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sm/date/2003-05-25/segment/21

      For cosmetics, that’s the kind of thing you normally look up in a specialist encyclopaedia first. Try Margaret Schaus, Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia. Or Les soins de beauté, Moyen Age, début des temps modernes. Actes du IIIe Colloque international, Grasse (26-28 avril 1985). I guess the story of the “red lipstick” ban is that someone got pissed about medieval clerics railing against cosmetics and decided there must have a MEDIEVAL CHURCH BAN™ (in force from 476 to 1500 and perfectly enforced) on red lipstick just because.

  22. An excellent article! I especially think it was well-balanced and attempted to curtail a priori bias.

    You said: “You can make hypotheses and test them in science – or at least you can in the hard sciences. You can actually prove things, as far as anything is provable. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable.” This is a fair statement. However, technically, you can’t prove things in science. Qualifying your statement (i.e., “as far as anything is provable”) only muddies the point. Although, I would agree with you that you can disprove hypotheses. Most of your examples were of this kind, which is the only way to look at it. As Stephen Hawking has pointed out: “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

    Your second statement about falsifiability is an excellent guide to empirical method. However, as you noted (I think), it isn’t a good guide for historical study or even less for metaphysical study.

    I appreciate your even-handed approach and your overall scholarly approach.

    Best, David

    3
    1
    1. However, technically, you can’t prove things in science.

      I know. And I’ve already addressed this in an earlier comment. I’m well aware of the limits of science, thanks.

      Qualifying your statement (i.e., “as far as anything is provable”) only muddies the point.

      No, it doesn’t. It simply indicates that I understand the limits of science, but chose not to elaborate on them in an article that was about something else.

      1. It’s okay, my friend. No need to justify yourself to me. Perhaps you have been doing this long enough to start reacting to perceived criticisms. Mine are not criticisms, they are encouragements from a scientist. Forgive me if you thought I was criticizing you personally. You’ve done excellent work.

        1
        1
        1. I don’t care if it was or wasn’t a criticism. I’ve already explained why I didn’t go off on a long tangent on science and epistemology.

  23. About makeup and artificial lip-colouring. It should be remembered that such things were considered the province of prostitutes as late as the nineteenth century in England, and by some as improper even as late as the 1930s, though perfectly acceptable in eighteenth-century France. Such things may be addressed in sermons and so on, but they express a given society’s peer-pressures and so change with time and with locality.

    2
    1
    1. True.

      I know of no scholarly research on freckles specifically. Maybe some of you guys and ladies could write one?

      Related: Geneticists say that all red hair came from a single woman a few tens of thousands of years ago. And general fashions often said that a pure clear white complexion was best. My own experience with them finds they often get worse with exposure to the sun; associated to “lower class” that worked in the fields. As “villainous” villagers and pre-civilized pagans did.

      If you want to write something scholarly, find whatever references you can in both popular and scholarly literature. Then write.

      Before (and even after) modern medicine, any spots of the face might have seemed unsightly, alarming, ominous, evil. Reference to witches seem familiar.

      For visuals, and a slightly different modern perspective? I also recall a major fashion magazine (Vogue?) doing a visual special on them, a few decades ago. Spots nearly as big as dalmations’. Which the advanced aesthetic of high fashion presented as in effect beautiful. Or at least visually arresting.

      Good luck in your historical research.

      1
      4
  24. In your video on Jesus Mythicism, you said that all historical analysis is an assessment of likelihood. Do you think that there are some brute historical facts (that WWII actually occurred and that we can know that with certainty, for example), or would you say that absolutely everything can only be assessed by likelihood, and that some historical events (like WWII) are not certain but are beyond reasonable doubt?

    1. Everything is a matter of likelihood. It’s just that some things are so clearly well-attested that the likelihood is high to the point of being essentially certain. The further back we go and the fewer sources we have, the more uncertain things get. But until we invent time machines, it’s all an assessment of what is most likely.

      1. Do you know of any professional historiographers who take this stance explicitly? I think it is correct, but it would be interesting to see it explored in depth.

        1. I give references in my Further Reading section which explain what I’m saying. Start with Howell and Prevenier.

          1. Would it be fair to say that the only absolute facts in history are (a) a source exists, and (b) that source says certain thinks that supposedly reflect historical realities?

    2. To get pedantic: likelyhood can also mean a probability of 1. Technically that’s beyond our reach indeed. Asserting that Gaius Octavious, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, became Emperor Augustus (or Kennedy being a former president of the USA) has a probability so high that it’s more likely than CERN having found the higgs boson instead of being mistaken. We need so many 9s (as in 0,999…) that we shouldn’t bother. In court the expression is beyond reasonable doubt.

      1. You are confusing historical facts with “history.” That John Fitzgerald Kennedy, born 29th May 1917, was the 35th President of the USA, sworn in 20th January 1961 and assassinated 22nd November 1963 are indisputable historical facts but as such they are not “history.” We use historical facts to write history but they alone do not constitute history. Thinking that they do is a return to the primary school history of my youth where school children were required to learn the lists of the dates of English kings and queens, a meaningless exercise. Historical facts are the scaffolding with which we construct answers to historical questions and those answers involve assumptions, speculations and above all interpretations.

        1
        1
        1. I didn’t equate historical facts with historical research.
          Reread Rhys’ comment above and pay special attention to “there are some brute historical facts”. Also notice Tim oN’s “Everything is a matter of likelihood.” Finally realize that “indisputable historical facts” just means beyond reasonable doubt.
          Thus you may avoid attacking a strawman next time.

        2. “Historical facts are the scaffolding with which we construct answers to historical questions and those answers involve assumptions, speculations and above all interpretations.”

          This misses my point somewhat: it is in fact the sources that serve as the ground for judging what is a historical fact or not, which must be done by assessing hypotheses for how a source came to be. Often, the events related by a source explain the source’s existence perfectly well, so we can say that those events being “facts” is beyond reasonable doubt. Probability judgements must always proceed the acceptance of something as a historical fact; the assumptions and probability judgements used in constructing a narrative actually constitute a second heuristic layer. In short, while it might be superfluous to qualify an affirmation of, say, the existence of the Roman Empire with “probably,” it would be more methodologically precise to do so.

    3. One thing to keep in mind is that even within brutal historical facts, there are still parts that are a matter of likelihood and uncertainty. Keeping with the WWII example, one big debate, at least when I was still in college, is what exactly were the events that led to the Holocaust. Specifically, was the Holocaust the plan of the Nazis all along, or was it a sort of series of decisions and attempts to please Hitler from Hitlers subordinates that eventually led to the Holocaust. Of course I am not attempting to deny or minimize what happened during the Holocaust.

      Another might be to what extent did the Imperial Family of Japan know and sanction what was going on with Unit 731. Or, what was the motivation of the United States to finally make the decision to drop the bomb.

      These are all examples just with events that occurred less than a hundred years ago that are still sources of contention, debates and uncertainty about events that we know happened. Its’ been years since I was a history student, so some of this might be out of date or considered “settled,” but I hope you can understand kind of where I’m coming from.

      1. “was the plan … all along, or was it a sort of series of …”
        Both. They are not mutually exclusive. Though it depends how we define “plan”: merely general intention or with detailed instructions?
        The other two examples are good, though, it’s not that I dispute your conclusion.
        My main point is that few complicated historical questions have simple, straightforward answers, even if they are very tempting.

        1. My wording could probably have been better, but I think you more or less stated what I meant. I probably should have said something along the lines of general intention. Like I said, I’ve been out of the history scene for a bit.

  25. This reminds me of an argument I had with a mythicist this morning. I encountered him “in the wild” on social media and, having binged this site a lot, was looking forward to having a go at ripping into mysticism. So I mentioned Paul’s references to a human Jesus, Paul’s meeting with James, the Antiquities XX.200 reference, the Tacitus reference, Nazareth, crucifixion and parsimony. To which he responded “you only have literary evidence, I won’t believe in Jesus until you can present Jesus’ writings or remains or living relatives”, plus the mythicist standby of “Tacitus only talks about Christians, not Jesus”. He even demanded I use maths to show that Jesus existed, somehow.

        1. The saga continues. I pointed out that the evidence for Jesus is about equal too (and, when Tacitus is factored in, greater than) that for Athronges, John the Baptist, the Samaritan Prophet, Theudas and the Egyptian Prophet, with brief rundowns for who each was and the sources for them (JA and the Jewish War, plus the Gospels have John and Acts mentions Theudas and the Egyptian). His response?
          He compared Josephus and the New Testament to Harry Potter, and then said that he looked forward to getting to argue about these things with someone who knew as much about the Bible as he did. Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest.

          1. Sounds to me like this clown is worth less than the time you have already invested in him (unless you’re just laughing at him).

  26. Rereading this piece, I was reminded of how annoying the claim about “hearsay” can be (Ok, a good part of that is it is every mythicists favorite word). Am I mistaken to think all history is hearsay? To be sure, while we can’t interrogate our sources in the way a witness can be interrogated in court, is it mistaken to think of informed historical judgement as “hearsay”?

    1. It’s category error to think that the rules of some legal systems (some allow what we call “hearsay” in some circumstances) are the ones we use to assess history. So yes, it’s not useful to refer to a range of evidence that can be usefully analysed critically by historians using this inappropriate and irrelevant term.

      1. Thanks, Tim. I do know court rules aren’t right for history, but we are just as limited by it. My sense is more about the quality than rules of admissibility.

        1. The quality of what gets mislabelled “hearsay” depends on a wide range of variables. Something which is widely known and so could be heard by anyone would be “hearsay”, but could be widely known because it was clearly true. Or it could be the equivalent of an urban myth or commonly held misconception and so be nonsense. Both would be “hearsay” if one of our sources reported them but one would be true and the other untrue. So to rule out both would be stupid – each needs to be assessed on its merits as far as the historian can, not rejected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *