[syzarian]

Your comment makes me think you didn’t read the scholars’ paper. I think you might be imposing your own, baseless, assumption on the scholar’s intent. I think a person writing a research article intended to be read by experts isn’t going to just spout unsubstantiated nonsense. There must be at least some merit to the assertions made. The assertions may be wrong but they are not just personal impositions.

Consider the possibility that experts who study this stuff came to the conclusion because that is where the evidence lead them. That if you had expertise in this area that you too would see this as at least extremely plausible.

[Loughla]

While I understand what you're saying, it's cultural and personal bias, and it's present in everyone and everything. Experts are experts, and they are able to sort through field of specialty better, stronger, and faster than non-experts. But, they still all carry their own biases. That's what the original poster was about, I believe.

Looking at historical works about prior historical works can absolutely teach you about the source event. But it is also an incredibly relevant and accurate way to learn about cultural norms and the society the piece was created in.

Most experts go their entire career just trying to identify their own biases and eliminate them from their scholarship; it's harder than it looks because they're so ingrained into our personality.

In theory, the perfect expert follows the evidence to the appropriate conclusion. Only in theory.

In execution, they follow only specific lines of reasoning, certain thought patterns, and certain investigation patterns because of the cultural expectations and social mores the expert has developed, was trained under, and has lived with their entire lives.

edit; OP also said nothing about baseless claims. Just that the scholarship we read will be relevant in the future as a snapshot into our lives, as well as whatever the research is about.

[syzarian]

VoodooJuJu said: …this historian's personal impositions onto this ancient deity…

This gives me the impression that VoodooJuJu thinks the historian had an ideological agenda and was making a square be a circle so to speak. If the historians claims are not baseless then how can personal imposition be an apt description?

I agree with what you wrote but I think your edit is wrong. VoodooJuJu didn’t use the word baseless but I think that is the essence of their claim. How can the historian’s claim be an insight into today’s culture, views, and lives if the claim is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts? A claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by known facts is a claim that could be made by anyone whose language has words for what we call transvestism, gender fluidity, and androgyny. It seems to me at most, with a claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by known facts, one can only infer the level of permissiveness that experts had to discuss such topics.

[Loughla]

I think maybe I didn't get my point across as well as I should have.

>How can the historian’s claim be an insight into today’s culture, views, and lives if the claim is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts?

Because the facts are evaluated through the lens of the historian. The lines of reasoning, logical conclusions, and modes/methods of investigation are all, inherently influenced by how the historian was raised, trained, and how/when/where they live. It's just part of being human. It is impossible to present literally anything without it being biased in some fashion. In deciding what to report and what not to, how much weight to give to historical accounts versus other historical accounts, what sources to chase down, even where to look in the physical world, we are imposing our own beliefs on the event.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

Not about this specific article, or the concepts of gender fluidity, etc. But the actual process of investigating and reporting historical facts. It is an inherently biased process. It just is.

And I believe that was the OP's point.

[syzarian]

I understand what you are saying and agree with it but not as it pertains to JuJu’s comment and intent.

A baseless claim says much about the person making it. A claim that is well reasoned and supported by the facts says very little about the person making it.

If I say: The IQ of blacks in the U.S. is on average lower than that of whites. that says nothing about my ideology. If I say: Black people are stupid. that says much about my ideology.

Making a claim that is well reasoned and substantiated by the known facts says that the person making the claim reasoned it well and had facts that supported that reasoning and they possessed the vocabulary and permissiveness to discuss those ideas. One can not infer a person’s ideology from such a claim. Of course biases and experience play a role in these things but looking from the outside you can’t say of well reasoned claims: personal imposition. That is too strong of a conclusion.

[rajin444]

The parent made a point about trust and how all historians are subject to biases. You responded with an appeal to authority, one of the many ways “history is written by the victors”.

[syzarian]

Appeal to authority is not an argumentative fallacy. I say this in case you think it is. Almost all of what you believe comes from “authorities”. What is an argumentative fallacy is an appeal to a false authority. I have some expertise in mathematics and a person using me as a reference in an argument about English literature is making an argumentative fallacy. A person using me as a reference in a matter about mathematics is not making an argumentative fallacy.

What is interesting about your comment is that I made no appeal to authority. I did not quote anyone or make any references to an authority. What I did was to ask JuJu to consider something and to state what I think.

What’s ironic about your comment is that JuJu did make an appeal to an authority.

EDIT: You believe 1+1 equals 2. I doubt you know how to prove this rigorously. Your belief is based on an appeal to authority. Have you independently verified that electrons exist? Or that the moon is a little more than one light second away? Have you ever supplied links to an article to support a position you have?

[rajin444]

It is a fallacy, but you’re right ultimately one we have to live with. There’s no way to function doing all the research yourself. This is why trust is so critical.

The crux of your post was “I trust the intent of the experts because they’re experts”. I don’t think that is a good reason to trust somebody.