Does truth and accuracy matter to you?

[Aardverk]

‘History is written by the victors’ but most people fail to recognize that the ‘history’ may be unreliable if they are one of the victors. We have many people on this forum making ‘loose’ claims about ‘losers’ such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia based upon some pretty shaky ‘evidence’ and then assume that evidence doesn't matter because we ‘all know it’s true’.

Is that really good enough for us? Should we accept something, particularly about absent parties, just because it is popular belief OR should we all try to be more factual and demanding about the level of proof before we claim or assume something?

I am not talking about religion, I am talking about history. There are many examples but I will give just one common claim to illustrate my point: It is generally ‘known’ that Russia invaded Afghanistan but it is untrue.

 

[Grazer]

‘History is written by the victors’ but most people fail to recognize that the ‘history’ may be unreliable if they are one of the victors. We have many people on this forum making ‘loose’ claims about ‘losers’ such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia based upon some pretty shaky ‘evidence’ and then assume that evidence doesn't matter because we ‘all know it’s true’.

Is that really good enough for us? Should we accept something, particularly about absent parties, just because it is popular belief OR should we all try to be more factual and demanding about the level of proof before we claim or assume something?

I am not talking about religion, I am talking about history. There are many examples but I will give just one common claim to illustrate my point: It is generally ‘known’ that Russia invaded Afghanistan but it is untrue.

I agree that we should pursue truth and accuracy but there is so much misinformation around that its hard to piece it together. Take this wikipedia article for example;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

It clearly shows Afghanistan was invaded Russian forces. The internet can work for spreading useful as well as useless information.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Classik]

Truth is truth and always accurate (anything else may contain false embroidery). I think the topic in itself is strange and maybe unreliable to an extent. What is truth? Truth is 100% truth/true and 100% accurate. It stands on its own, needing no decoration and falsification and embroidery. So when you say: you told the truth, 'YES' and say, how accurate...I think it calls for suspicion and doubt.

 

[Matthew G]

Absolutely, we shouldn't accept a claim or viewpoint just because it's popular, and especially if it's unsubstantiated. My personal go-to for this sort of subject (being just a hint of a history nerd) is the 47 Ronin. Here's what we know for certain: A lord named Asano did live in Japan in the 1700's. He did attack a higher-ranked official named Kira and was allowed to commit seppuku (self-disembowelment) rather than simply being executed. 2 years later, 47 of Asano's men who were still loyal, stormed Kira's castle and beheaded him, and then committed seppuku themselves after being sentenced to death. That's all. Yet, (at least in the small circle of people I know who have even heard of the 47 Ronin), there are those who just "know" that Asano attacked Kira because of comments made about Asano's wife when Kira couldn't talk him into bribing him like the other lords. They also "know" that a man named Oishi (Asano's chief retainer) divided all Asano's property among the few hundred men under him, scattered them across Japan, acted like a drunken fool in public to lure Kira into a sense of false security, and then sent word to all Asano's men that the time for revenge had come. They "know" only 47 came to the meeting, and they all cut off the tips of their pinky fingers as a showing of loyalty and commitment to the mission.

None of that, of course, can be substantiated because the records simply don't exist, but that doesn't keep people from "knowing" that's how it went down.

So, yeah...now that I've rambled on and made my point about as clear as a hunk of mud, I digress :D

 

[Mountainshield]

I may be wrong though but to it sounds like you are insinuating that people like me who use peer reviewed articles/official books don't care about truth/accuracy because we rely on government documents, official books/historians and peer reviewed articles for our sources. What you are doing is resorting to ad hominem attacks against authors/sources and more importantly justify your rejection of what every official university would call fact by simply using existentialism, and i'm starting to suspect that you are existentialist or at least "existentialist when it supports your arguments" which would clarify many of your positions.

You say you prefer peer reviewed sources but refuse books by official historians who write articles that are per reviewed, and you reject books due too accusations of bias, as if bias falsify arguments. That an author may be biased does make a good reason to double check the sources the author uses for his statements/facts but it does not invalidate them.

There are many examples but I will give just one common claim to illustrate my point: It is generally ‘known’ that Russia invaded Afghanistan but it is untrue.

This is not a 100% true/untrue statement, its a question of semantics and yes bias. What is 100% true is that Russian troops entered Afghanistan, it is documented by government documents, footage and interviews. Let me use an analogy to clarify;

It is generally ‘known’ that USA invaded Vietnam but it is untrue.

Many people will claim that the US did invade Vietnam, though this is technically untrue as the US entered through a military and economic aid treaty with South Vietnman in 1961. It is true that the US entered South Vietnam, but if it was an invasion, is a question of semantics and bias, as it is with the Russian "Invasion" of Afghanistan.

‘History is written by the victors

This is also not a 100% statement, even though we are all subjects of indoctrination even in democratic nations. In the modern age we have thousands of books we can order from amazon from all kinds of authors. The statement is more valid when it comes to ancient history, like the history we know about Carthage is based on Roman sources and whatever literature the Cartheginians had was burned with their city. But at least from 14th century and onwards both the victors and the defeated wrote their own history books seperately. And you can find the truth by reading as many books as possible and making a conclusion based on the evidence aquired. You have to read the books of the people you differ with as well in order to make an unbiased conclusion of what is historical truth. Events can be falsified and be called historical truth, but the interpretations of the events is largerly written on political preferences.

 

[Aardverk]

I agree that we should pursue truth and accuracy but there is so much misinformation around that its hard to piece it together. Take this wikipedia article for example;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

It clearly shows Afghanistan was invaded Russian forces. The internet can work for spreading useful as well as useless information.

I really, really don't want to get into detail on the subject of Afghanistan but you have actually illustrated the problem extremely well, so I think it is worth a quick exchange.

The article you posted was copied from Wikipedia and did not seem to me to make sense. I went independently to Wikipedia and found that the extract in your link missed out, for some unknown reason, the most critical information. This is also copied from Wikipedia:

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.[27]​

The other crucial information missing from your extract is that The Afghan government asked the Russians three times, in accordance with the friendship agreement, to give them the military aid to to fight off the rebel Mujahadeen. Eventually Russia came in as requested. If only the CIA, covertly at first, and then Jimmy Carter openly, had not armed the Mujahadeen (including the Taliban), the world would probably be a far safer place now and 9/11 wouldn't have happened BUT I am straying away from the thread and doing exactly what I don't want others to do. :gah

As others have pointed out, you do need to be very careful when using Wikipedia. Not only is it subject to malicious editing, some people can not even see it. I don't know if he was right or not but jasoncran said, a few months back, that he couldn't see it at all in Florida!(?).

 

[Aardverk]

Truth is truth and always accurate (anything else may contain false embroidery).............It stands on its own, needing no decoration and falsification and embroidery. ..............

Absolutely right.

My point was however, that many people assert things as true when they are actually just repeating rumors and propaganda without making any attempt to check for themselves if it is true. Then, when someone corrects them, they keep plugging away with the propaganda and diversionary tactics rather than even trying to find out if their original claim is right.

 

[Aardverk]

......So, yeah...now that I've rambled on and made my point about as clear as a hunk of mud, I digress :D

It was very clear and I understand exactly what you mean. It illustrates my point extremely well.

Staying with Japan for another example, about 40 years ago there was a TV series called Shogun about an English navigator in feudal Japan. A 'Japan buff', martial arts 'expert' friend of mine ridiculed the whole idea on the basis that the Japanese would never have allowed him to live. For many years I just assumed that he was right but only last year I learned that the whole series was based on real events. Sorry, I can't remember the names but the actor was Richard Chamberlain:nod

 

[Aardverk]

.....you can find the truth by reading as many books as possible and making a conclusion based on the evidence aquired. You have to read the books of the people you differ with as well in order to make an unbiased conclusion of what is historical truth. Events can be falsified and be called historical truth, but the interpretations of the events is largerly written on political preferences.

Reading widely around a subject will certainly help one gain a better perspective and it should also give a good clue as to whether the evidence that is presented is reliable or conclusive. It is however a very dangerous assumption that you can 'find the truth by reading as many books as possible'. If you read 12 books and they have similar tales but all have significant differences, how do you know which is right. You may well have read the truth but which book was it in? Unless we have indisputable facts, such as 'the written law of the land', we are still just guessing and assuming. A book written with great clarity and confidence is no more reliable than a cautious examination of a subject unless it contains demonstrable, incontrovertible facts.

A good example is the well know English civil engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunell. There are dozens of of books praising Brunell but a few years ago a book came out by Adrian Vaughan who cast doubt on much of the praise that had been heaped on Brunell by his fans. He made no criticism of Brunell, he indulged in no speculation, he simply went back to the original archived documents and presented the unvarnished truth along with incontrovertible evidence. That, I feel, is the way things should be done.

 

[Grazer]

I really, really don't want to get into detail on the subject of Afghanistan but you have actually illustrated the problem extremely well, so I think it is worth a quick exchange.

The article you posted was copied from Wikipedia and did not seem to me to make sense. I went independently to Wikipedia and found that the extract in your link missed out, for some unknown reason, the most critical information. This is also copied from Wikipedia:

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.[27]​

The other crucial information missing from your extract is that The Afghan government asked the Russians three times, in accordance with the friendship agreement, to give them the military aid to to fight off the rebel Mujahadeen. Eventually Russia came in as requested. If only the CIA, covertly at first, and then Jimmy Carter openly, had not armed the Mujahadeen (including the Taliban), the world would probably be a far safer place now and 9/11 wouldn't have happened BUT I am straying away from the thread and doing exactly what I don't want others to do. :gah

As others have pointed out, you do need to be very careful when using Wikipedia. Not only is it subject to malicious editing, some people can not even see it. I don't know if he was right or not but jasoncran said, a few months back, that he couldn't see it at all in Florida!(?).

That was the point I was making by using Wikipedia

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

That was the point I was making by using Wikipedia

Thank you Grazer. I thought it might be but I wasn't quite sure. I tried to take a neutral line in my explanation and I hope you don't feel that I have trodden on your toes.

 

[Grazer]

Thank you Grazer. I thought it might be but I wasn't quite sure. I tried to take a neutral line in my explanation and I hope you don't feel that I have trodden on your toes.

Not at all. It's a great point you're making. I've got a bit of experience looking at conspiracy theories so know the importance of getting correct information. But I also know how easy it is to get the wrong end of the stick and come up with some pretty outrageous conclusions.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2