Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Sophistry. Few quotes from the book: "Probity of the Divyavadana is also previously marred by the fact that Pushyamitra Sunga is mentioned as a descendant of Ashoka, whereas he did not belong to the Mauryan dynasty, a dynasty of non-Brahmanical background' Proof that he thinks more than 1 thing is a fabrication. Proof also that you do nothing more than word search and engage in sophistry. Applicable for primary sources. Not applicable when primary sources do not mention such a thing but secondary sources composed hundreds of years later do, as already explained above, replete with quotations from history departments of universities. Once more: " While secondary sources do a good job reviewing and interpreting primary source materials for you, there is no substitute for identifying, locating, and analyzing primary documents yourself. Especially for a research paper, the use of primary sources is recommended (and sometimes required)." No matter how much Chaddis would want to discredit our non-Hindu past, it shines and shines very brightly. Once again. Show that the three sources are discredited. One line from one books doesn't do it. You ignore that the author only mentions the Ashokavadana, not the other two. You also fail to show any objective criteria by the author you quote. You also ignore that he uses the same source multiple times to write history. Show the objective criteria that the author uses to discredit one portion of the Ashokavadana and not the others. Otherwise it is still a composition fallacy. The other two are still show that he murdered his brothers. Unfortunately for inbred individuals of low IQ, such as yourself, you can't make up your own historical method. You will have to discredit Allen, Thapar, Lahiri, Mookerjie, as well as every history department on the planet. Show definitively that these sources are discredited. You can't, therefore you lose. Show that secondary sources are discredited automatically and primary sources are automatically accepted. You can't because that isn't the historical method. You aren't a historian, so your opinion isn't of any value. The historical method takes precedence over Anglo-Bangladeshi human waste. The quote you used doesn't show that secondary sources are discredited. It says that for research papers, primary sources are preferred. Use a dictionary to see what that sentence you quoted means. Whatever leaps of logic you make from that, is your agenda. Your pathetic English skills are nauseating. When you are done pleasuring your goat, learn to read and understand English. Red: there is no proof that you provided that the non-Hindu past of Indians is glorious.(Notice that if you try to use the Edicts of Ashoka as the only source of information, there is nothing to show that his reign was glorious. All you have is some writings on a rock, with no evidence to corroborate anything. Thus, you can't prove that anything Ashoka did was great, with only the rock edicts). The fact that every historian uses these sources, is the burden you have to deal with, not me. You have to prove they aren't credible. The evidence is there and accepted by historians. Whatever some Canadian code coolie says is of no value. Once again, as I said in the other thread, provide something concrete or don't quote me. If you are going to try to discredit the entire profession of history, bring something definitive. Otherwise, you lack the mental faculties to engage in rational discourse and are wasting everyone's time. I will also post from Lahiri, an acutal historian Quote This statement is as vague and limited as the one you used to discredit the Ashokavadana. Therefore, the rock edicts are discredited. That leaves only the Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa. Both show Ashoka as a mass murderer. Primary sources vs secondary sources: It looks like you were going off the assumption that the 3 books are secondary sources. Please prove that they are secondary and not primary. Quote Primary sources are the raw materials of historical research - they are the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation. Often they are created during the time period which is being studied (correspondence, diaries, newspapers, government documents, art) but they can also be produced later by eyewitnesses or participants (memoirs, oral histories). You may find primary sources in their original format (usually in an archive) or reproduced in a variety of ways: books, microfilm, digital, etc. In contrast... Secondary sources are interpretations of events written after an examination of primary sources and usually other secondary sources, such as books and journal articles. Or via the Smithsonian: The rock edict falls under secondary source here. Quote Primary source - a document or object that was created by an individual or group as part of their daily lives. Primary sources include birth certificates, photographs, diaries, letters, embroidered samplers, clothing, household implements, and newspapers. First person testimony - the account of a person who actually participated in an event. Examples are oral history interviews, diaries, letters, photographs and drawings of events, and court testimony of an eyewitness. Secondary source - summaries, second-hand accounts, and analyses of events created by someone who did not witness the event, but may have read or heard about it. Examples may include: books or articles written on a topic, artworks depicting an event, letters or diaries recounting a version of events told to the author by another source. Second person or hearsay testimony - an account repeated by someone who did not actually participate in the event. Examples are newspaper accounts from interviews of observers, letters that repeat a story told to the writer, drawings based on other people’s observations, or a book written about a topic. Mixed sources - A document that is a primary source may contain both first person testimony and second hand testimony. An example would be a diary entry that records a person’s eyewitness observations of an event (first person testimony) but also contains additional stories told to the writer by a family member (second hand testimony). Newspapers often contain a mixture of first and second hand accounts. Historical method. Quote Historical method Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. The question of the nature, and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history as a question of epistemology. The study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known as historiography. Source criticism[edit] Main article: Source criticism Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation. Gilbert J Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:[1] When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? Where was it produced (localization)? By whom was it produced (authorship)? From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? In what original form was it produced (integrity)? What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is known as source criticism. R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative, merely saving us from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."[2] Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually. Procedures for contradictory sources[edit] Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3] If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense. Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own. Core principles for determining reliability[edit] The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4] Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives. Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased. Eyewitness evidence[edit] R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:[5] Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)? How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police? How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so? Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments? When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author? Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead? Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know? Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others. Are there inner contradictions in the document? Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"[6] Indirect witnesses[edit] Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay."[8] Oral tradition[edit] Gilbert Garraghan maintains that oral tradition may be accepted if it satisfies either two "broad conditions" or six "particular conditions", as follows:[9] Broad conditions stated. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the living mediate witness from whom we take it up, or to the one who was the first to commit it to writing. There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question. Particular conditions formulated. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for a definite period of time. During that definite period it must have gone without protest, even from persons interested in denying it. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration. [Elsewhere, Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures that excel in oral remembrance.] The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must have been at hand. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the tradition – had they considered it false – must have made no such challenge. Other methods of verifying oral tradition may exist, such as comparison with the evidence of archaeological remains. More recent evidence concerning the potential reliability or unreliability of oral tradition has come out of fieldwork in West Africa and Eastern Europe.[10] Anonymous Sources[edit] Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts.:[11] Synthesis: historical reasoning[edit] Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed and established by historical reasoning. Argument to the best explanation[edit] C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:[12] The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.) The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements. The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects. McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."[13] Statistical inference[edit] McCullagh states this form of argument as follows:[14] There is probability (of the degree p1) that whatever is an A is a B. It is probable (to the degree p2) that this is an A. Therefore, (relative to these premises) it is probable (to the degree p1 × p2) that this is a B. McCullagh gives this example:[15] In thousands of cases, the letters V.S.L.M. appearing at the end of a Latin inscription on a tombstone stand for Votum Solvit Libens Merito. From all appearances the letters V.S.L.M. are on this tombstone at the end of a Latin inscription. Therefore, these letters on this tombstone stand for '’Votum Solvit Libens Merito’’. This is a syllogism in probabilistic form, making use of a generalization formed by induction from numerous examples (as the first premise). Argument from analogy[edit] The structure of the argument is as follows:[16] One thing (object, event, or state of affairs) has properties p1 . . . pn and pn + 1. Another thing has properties p1 . . . pn. So the latter has property pn + 1. McCullagh says that an argument from analogy, if sound, is either a "covert statistical syllogism" or better expressed as an argument to the best explanation. It is a statistical syllogism when it is "established by a sufficient number and variety of instances of the generalization"; otherwise, the argument may be invalid because properties 1 through n are unrelated to property n + 1, unless property n + 1 is the best explanation of properties 1 through n. Analogy, therefore, is uncontroversial only when used to suggest hypotheses, not as a conclusive argument. Poor old man, makes a million claims per thread, but can't prove any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Tibarn said: Once again. Show that the three sources are discredited. One line from one books doesn't do it. You ignore that the author only mentions the Ashokavadana, not the other two. You also fail to show any objective criteria by the author you quote. You also ignore that he uses the same source multiple times to write history. Show the objective criteria that the author uses to discredit one portion of the Ashokavadana and not the others. Otherwise it is still a composition fallacy. Bolded : Perfect example of sophistry. It isn't one line, the author questions MANY of the claims of the book and says they are fabrications. Such as Asohka's treatment of Ajivaks, Pushyamitra related to him, usage of Dinara coins, etc. Quote Or via the Smithsonian: The rock edict falls under secondary source here. Hahahahahaha. Wannabe scientist exposes himself. Rock edicts fall under primary source. Reason has already been provided in many of the links before. Primary evidence is from the current time of the events. Which Rock-edicts decisively fall into, because of archaeological proof. Livy on Julius Caesar is primary evidence. Why ? Because Livy was contemporary to Julius Caesar, even though Livy himself was not physically present at the battle scene. Quote The other two are still show that he murdered his brothers. The other two cannot differentiate between Ashoka Maurya and Kakavarna Kalasoka. Quote Show that secondary sources are discredited automatically and primary sources are automatically accepted. You can't because that isn't the historical method. You aren't a historian, so your opinion isn't of any value. The historical method takes precedence over Anglo-Bangladeshi human waste. No-matter how much you squirm, this is from a university history department website: http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/primary.html " While secondary sources do a good job reviewing and interpreting primary source materials for you, there is no substitute for identifying, locating, and analyzing primary documents yourself. Especially for a research paper, the use of primary sources is recommended (and sometimes required)." Game, set and match, kiddo. I have shown, that secondary sources cannot substitute primary sources. Quote Red: there is no proof that you provided that the non-Hindu past of Indians is glorious.(Notice that if you try to use the Edicts of Ashoka as the only source of information, there is nothing to show that his reign was glorious. All you have is some writings on a rock, with no evidence to corroborate anything. Thus, you can't prove that anything Ashoka did was great, with only the rock edicts). There is no evidence to corroborate Babur killed hindu civilians and razed temples either There is no evidence to corroborate that Khufu and Khafre built the pyramids either. Keep running away from these facts that proves your argument is nothing more than sophistry. Quote The fact that every historian uses these sources, is the burden you have to deal with, not me. You have to prove they aren't credible. The evidence is there and accepted by historians. Whatever some Canadian code coolie says is of no value. Already done. I have provided links to historians who don't consider Ashokavadana to be reliable. Whatever a wannabe scientist says is of no value. Especially since he is yet to even hold a real job to put his skills to test. Quote This statement is as vague and limited as the one you used to discredit the Ashokavadana. Except this statement is not from Lahiri, it is from Sanyal, a non-historian, who also doesn't cite his source. Dismissed! Quote It looks like you were going off the assumption that the 3 books are secondary sources. Please prove that they are secondary and not primary. Already proven, if you'd bothered to read the links i provided. Any record, from hundreds of years after the event, is a secondary source. https://www.uvic.ca/library/research/tips/primvsec/index.php " What is a primary source? A document or record containing first-hand information or original data on a topic A work created at the time of an event or by a person who directly experienced an event Some examples include: interviews, diaries, letters, journals, original hand-written manuscripts, newspaper and magazine clippings, government documents, etc. The history how to: primary sources guide has lots more information What is a secondary source? Any published or unpublished work that is one step removed from the original source, usually describing, summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, derived from, or based on primary source materials A source that is one step removed from the original event or experience A source that provides criticism or interpretation of a primary source Some examples include: textbooks, review articles, biographies, historical films, music and art, articles about people and events from the past " http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/secondary.html " The most common type of source you are likely to encounter is a secondary source. A secondary source is any source about an event, period, or issue in history that was produced after that event, period or issue has passed. A primary source is any original source - an image, text, newspaper article, political cartoon, map, deed, letter, diary, or artifact; and the list goes on - that comments on, testifies, or bears witness to the time period of its own production. In this respect, primary sources are the raw material of history. They are what historians study as they try to learn what happened in the past, and what an event meant in the context of its times. " The list is endless. Divyavadana, Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa- they are all composed hundreds of years after Ashoka, so they are all secondary sources on Ashoka. The definitions of primary and secondary evidence is mostly the same across fields, be it history, science or economics. Its rather sad, that a so-called scientist, who apparently don't think Engineers & doctors know science, fail at things taught in 2nd year university regarding sources. Edited January 19, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Bolded : Perfect example of sophistry. It isn't one line, the author questions MANY of the claims of the book and says they are fabrications. Such as Asohka's treatment of Ajivaks, Pushyamitra related to him, usage of Dinara coins, etc. Hahahahahaha. Wannabe scientist exposes himself. Rock edicts fall under primary source. Reason has already been provided in many of the links before. Primary evidence is from the current time of the events. Which Rock-edicts decisively fall into, because of archaeological proof. Livy on Julius Caesar is primary evidence. Why ? Because Livy was contemporary to Julius Caesar, even though Livy himself was not physically present at the battle scene. The other two cannot differentiate between Ashoka Maurya and Kakavarna Kalasoka. No-matter how much you squirm, this is from a university history department website: http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/primary.html " While secondary sources do a good job reviewing and interpreting primary source materials for you, there is no substitute for identifying, locating, and analyzing primary documents yourself. Especially for a research paper, the use of primary sources is recommended (and sometimes required)." Game, set and match, kiddo. I have shown, that secondary sources cannot substitute primary sources. There is no evidence to corroborate Babur killed hindu civilians and razed temples either There is no evidence to corroborate that Khufu and Khafre built the pyramids either. Keep running away from these facts that proves your argument is nothing more than sophistry. Already done. I have provided links to historians who don't consider Ashokavadana to be reliable. Whatever a wannabe scientist says is of no value. Especially since he is yet to even hold a real job to put his skills to test. Except this statement is not from Lahiri, it is from Sanyal, a non-historian, who also doesn't cite his source. Dismissed! Already proven, if you'd bothered to read the links i provided. Any record, from hundreds of years after the event, is a secondary source. https://www.uvic.ca/library/research/tips/primvsec/index.php " What is a primary source? A document or record containing first-hand information or original data on a topic A work created at the time of an event or by a person who directly experienced an event Some examples include: interviews, diaries, letters, journals, original hand-written manuscripts, newspaper and magazine clippings, government documents, etc. The history how to: primary sources guide has lots more information What is a secondary source? Any published or unpublished work that is one step removed from the original source, usually describing, summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, derived from, or based on primary source materials A source that is one step removed from the original event or experience A source that provides criticism or interpretation of a primary source Some examples include: textbooks, review articles, biographies, historical films, music and art, articles about people and events from the past " http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/secondary.html " The most common type of source you are likely to encounter is a secondary source. A secondary source is any source about an event, period, or issue in history that was produced after that event, period or issue has passed. A primary source is any original source - an image, text, newspaper article, political cartoon, map, deed, letter, diary, or artifact; and the list goes on - that comments on, testifies, or bears witness to the time period of its own production. In this respect, primary sources are the raw material of history. They are what historians study as they try to learn what happened in the past, and what an event meant in the context of its times. " The list is endless. I don't read your posts anymore, I skim them to see if you provided a source or not. Thereafter I just post what I know you won't answer to in response. Considering the lack of sources in your posts and your general lack of brains, I don't feel the need to read your garbage. Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts. You claim that the sources, Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa are discredited. Provide definitive proof that they are discredited, otherwise, continue to waste your time. I warned you what would happen if you didn't provide sources. Now: (This is more or less the same post you will see repeatedly in response to both threads until you provide sources for your claims.) Tibarn 10-0 Gappu I hope you address the links you provided yourself which claim that primary sources are to be questioned as well. Quote Here is a link on the weaknesses of primary sources: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/guides/primary-sources/primary-sources/strengthsweakness http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Y0HPhPHOk8J:mercury.educ.kent.edu/database/eureka/documents/PrimaryandSecondarySourcesTeacherResource_handout.doc+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Quote Strengths: Provide information on the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of an event. Provide written, printed, or graphic information. Purpose of the communication or transaction is often clear. May indicate the social and economic status of the author. May offer insight into the emotional state of the author. Can stimulate the personal involvement of the reader. Weaknesses: May not be a thoroughly objective source; may not consider other views or perspectives on the same event(s). The identity of the author may be unclear (especially true in the case of government documents). The author is usually no longer living and thus cannot be consulted for verification. May be difficult to read (handwriting may be difficult to decipher); words or phrases may be unfamiliar and their meanings may have changed over time. Documents must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence to determine whether they present information that is exceptional or conforms to previously established patterns. Quote Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary Sources Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources. Although advisable to use primary sources if possible, writers may proceed to make use of secondary sources. Primary sources avoid the problem of secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings. However, a primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. There can be bias and simplification of events. These errors may be corrected in secondary sources when subjected to peer review. Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources they are using. A primary source such as journal entry (or online version, a blog) may only reflect one individual’s opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate or complete. Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate. For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias. As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it can be censored or altered for propaganda or cover-up purposes. The facts can be distorted to present the opposing sides in a negative light. Quote Historians use a wide variety of sources to answer questions about the past. In their research,history scholars use both primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, articles of clothing. Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing about events sometime after they happened. Primary sources offer an inside view of a particular event. Read it, if your brain can handle it. How about you actually read what you post to instead of just posting random links without double checking them. I have no interest in double checking you. You showed yourself as an idiot repeatedly, such as quoting an author who himself uses the Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa as evidence of the three texts being discredited. On 1/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muloghonto said: All primary evidence is assumed true at face value. Because, as i said, we cannot prove a negative, i.e., we cannot prove that solitary sources of primary evidences are untrue You illiterate fool, you don't even read what you post yourself. From each of the links you provided: Your Link #1 http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary Quote 4. Defining questions When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered: How does the author know these details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene? Where does this information come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by others? Are the author's conclusions based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts, impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts)? Ultimately, all source materials of whatever type must be assessed critically and even the most scrupulous and thorough work is viewed through the eyes of the writer/interpreter. This must be taken into account when one is attempting to arrive at the 'truth' of an event. Notice it says all sources are to be critically examined, not just the ones that suit the agenda of some Anglo-Bangladeshi pole-vaulter. Your Link # 2 https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html Quote The five key questions: Questioning Primary Sources Knowing the differences between primary and secondary sources is the first step to better understanding the past. Once you have found your primary sources, it is important to question them to find out what they say and who made them. A primary source is created every time you send an email, take a photograph, or write in your journal. These primary sources reflect the worries, concern, or opinions you have when you create them. As you know, these documents can express feelings of love, joy, unhappiness or dislike. Sometimes the emotions of the creator or author can be clearly seen in primary sources. Other times, they are hidden. Sometimes a primary source will contain lies or mistaken information. Sometimes a primary source is actually a fake, made to look old and important. When looking at primary sources, there are several questions you should always ask to help you understand the material. These questions will also help you figure out if a source is authentic or fake. Authentic primary sources are great research material for projects, but you need to be careful of fake ones! Sometimes it will be easy to get the answers to your questions, and sometimes it will be impossible. Don't worry if it gets difficult -- just asking the questions is important. What: What is the primary source? Is it a photo? If so, is it in black and white or colour? Is it a letter? If so, is it typed, or handwritten? Who: Who wrote the letter, took the photo or painted the painting? Can you be sure it was really that person who made it? When: When was the primary source created? How can you tell its age? Where: Can you tell where the primary source was created? Why: Why was the primary source created? Does it tell a story? Is it a love letter? Is it an order from an officer to a soldier? Is it a picture of the Rocky Mountains? Does the primary source tell you why it was created? Can you guess why it was created? When you are studying a primary source, write down your answers to the five key questions. Do you think that the primary source is authentic? Do you think it is fake? An authentic source can tell you lots about the people, places, and events of the past. What did people think in the past? How did they talk to each other? What did they wear? You can find out for yourself using primary sources. A faked source can also tell you a lot. Why would someone go to all of that trouble to fool us? What were they hiding and what did they want us to think? Being a historian is a lot like being a detective, with primary sources as the evidence. It's your job to find out what really happened! Remember that history is never final. Accounts of the past are as different as the people who create them. That means there is lots of room for you to research and write your own story. Notice how it even gives a method for questioning primary sources. Edited January 19, 2017 by Tibarn Gappugiri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 All I am reading is reams of copied pages from Wikipedia and name-calling at the end. Yoda-esque 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Thread poora digress ho gaya. Yoda-esque 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: I don't read your posts anymore, I skim them to see if you provided a source or not. Thereafter I just post what I know you won't answer to in response. Considering the lack of sources in your posts and your general lack of brains, I don't feel the need to read your garbage. Feel free to waste your time with long, meandering posts. You claim that the sources, Ashokavadana, Mahavamsa, and Dipavamsa are discredited. Provide definitive proof that they are discredited, otherwise, continue to waste your time. I warned you what would happen if you didn't provide sources. Now: Bolded part shows why you are caught in an endless loop. If you won't read sources i post, then you won't get the definitive proof of what you seek. DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I have had enough of abuses and name calling in this thread.One more time and action will be taken.If you cant discuss like civilized human beings,leave the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Bolded part shows why you are caught in an endless loop. If you won't read sources i post, then you won't get the definitive proof of what you seek. DUH! Reading your endless, repetitive posts have proven nothing. The loop is your circular arguments/begging the question: Ashoka isn't a mass murderer is because I say so. => All the sources say otherwise, even the edicts which show he killed and targeted civilians. Unless you think slavery occurs without violence and was a necessity(something else you can't prove). Mathematically /statistically impossible. A because A All historians are discredited because you say so. You aren't a historian, thus your opinions aren't relevant. A because A All sources I don't like are discredited because I say so=> None of the links provided discredit all three sources. You repeat the same nonsense over and over. A because A Secondary sources are automatically discredited because you say so. None of the sources you gave say so. In fact, multiple agree they are used as sources of history. Furthermore, you are relying on secondary/tertiary sources, such as the only book you quoted in the entire thread to discredit the Ashokavadana. By your own logic the book you quoted is discredited. Hypocrisy, double standards, composition fallacy are just a few of the logical fallacies => zero sources given and zero argument. A because A Primary sources are assumed true at face value because you say so => zero evidence provided supports that. Numerous sources given say primary sources must also be critically examined. More baseless opinions by a non-historian. A because A Archaeological sources are taken to be 100% true because you say so=> Zero sources given. You aren't a historian, so your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. A because A Ashoka's reign was "glorious" because you say so. Zero sources given. The three sources that portray Ashoka's reign as anything similar to glorious,( you claim without reference), are discredited. Nothing in the rock edicts show definitively any glorious achievement. Zero evidence of implementation in the rock edicts. Zero evidence of positive outcomes in the rock edicts. Zero sources provided to accept the statements at face value. Zero evidence of glory in the rock edicts =>Zero sources, zero argument. A because A Devolve to name-calling when asked for sources/evidence => pattern of behavior which you repeat across threads. The onus is on the one that tries to change accepted history and disprove historical sources. Give a link that definitively discredit the three sources. (In case you don't know, a link is easily noticeable while skimming.) Whatever redundant mass of text you post is otherwise useless. Stop wasting time and spamming the thread. Edited January 19, 2017 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 This thread is an example of fine critical reasoning. Conclusions without premises :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 6 hours ago, Tibarn said: Ashoka isn't a mass murderer is because I say so. => All the sources say otherwise, even the edicts which show he killed and targeted civilians. Unless you think slavery occurs without violence and was a necessity(something else you can't prove). That slavery happens without mass murder, is amply evident from the Trans-atlantic slave trade. Ashoka isn't a mass murderer, because there is no primary evidence that says so. Simple as that. Violence happened has to be proven. Or are you going to continue your unscientific 'try to prove something didnt happen' quest ? Quote All historians are discredited because you say so. You aren't a historian, thus your opinions aren't relevant. No sequitur. I would not be quoting historians if i thought all historians are discredited. Quote All sources I don't like are discredited because I say so=> None of the links provided discredit all three sources. You repeat the same nonsense over and over. You can bury your head in the sand, but the links state categorically, especially from historians, that they find the written accounts lacking probity. Those were quoted words of a historian. Quote Secondary sources are automatically discredited because you say so. None of the sources you gave say so. In fact, multiple agree they are used as sources of history. Furthermore, you are relying on secondary/tertiary sources, such as the only book you quoted in the entire thread to discredit the Ashokavadana. By your own logic the book you quoted is discredited. More sophistry. I have provided links from university history departments that show secondary sources can be used complementary to primary sources, but not to override primary evidence. Infact a history department categorically said there is no substituting primary sources. You thinking that a historian's work is a tertiary source on Ashokavadana itself shows you have no idea how to use sources. Primary,secondary,tertiary sources are dependent on the event in question. Ashokavadana is a secondary source on Ashoka. Ashokavadana is a primary source on Buddhist rituals in 2nd century AD. The historian in question, does not use the Ashokavadana to form an opinion of Ashoka, so his work is not a tertiary source on Ashoka. These are basic rules of citation, which you seem to've not been properly educated on. Quote Primary sources are assumed true at face value because you say so => zero evidence provided supports that. Numerous sources given say primary sources must also be critically examined. More baseless opinions by a non-historian. Archaeological sources are taken to be 100% true because you say so=> Zero sources given. You aren't a historian, so your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Not because i said so, but because historical process dictates that Primary sources >> secondary sources. And if there is only one avenue of primary sources, then it is, by default, taken as true unless proven otherwise. I substantiated this claim with the fact that Baburnama is the only primary source on Babur and its taken true on face value. So is Sennacherib's inscriptions on his conquests or Khufu and Khafre building the pyramids. There is no other source, just Archaeological source, that too, one source. Yet, it is taken as true. And you run away from this fact. Quote The three sources that portray Ashoka's reign as anything similar to glorious,( you claim without reference), are discredited. Nothing in the rock edicts show definitively any glorious achievement. Zero evidence of implementation in the rock edicts. Zero evidence of positive outcomes in the rock edicts. Zero sources provided to accept the statements at face value. Zero evidence of glory in the rock edicts Again, unscientific line of thought. You cannot prove something didnt happen. You can only prove that something did happen. And for that, if there is no conflicting information on PRIMARY SOURCES or if there is only one avenue of primary source, it is taken true as default. This is proven by the fact that there is only one primary source on Babur- his own autobiography. And we take it as true. Same goes for Khufu and Khafre- there is only one primary source, namely, heirelographics on the pyramids. And we take it to be true. If we can take one inscription of Sennacherib as true, then we can take the inscriptions of Ashoka as true as well. That is consistency in the process- something you are struggling with due to your agenda-driven position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 23 hours ago, Muloghonto said: That slavery happens without mass murder, is amply evident from the Trans-atlantic slave trade. Ashoka isn't a mass murderer, because there is no primary evidence that says so. Simple as that. Violence happened has to be proven. Or are you going to continue your unscientific 'try to prove something didnt happen' quest ? The loop continues. A because A. Begging the question/circular argument. False, the actual historians have already accepted that civilians were killed. To disprove accepted history aka the null hypothesis, one has to provide sources that counter accepted history. There has been none presented. All you and the one historian you quoted are doing is picking and choosing which parts of secondary sources you want to discredit. That doesn't change history. You have no grounds to determine what is "scientific" as you are not a scientist, (as I showed in the other thread), and have no grounds to determine what is historical, as you are not a historian. If you were a scientist, you would know there are warranted and unwarranted assumptions. If you were a scientist, you would know there are negative hypotheses as well. Having a hypothesis similar,"The Aryan Invasion did not happen in India," is perfectly valid and testable. Only internet intellectuals who use "science" as a buzzword think otherwise. Violence is confirmed by both the rock edicts, which, in conjunction with understanding basic English sentence structure and parallelism, both show civilians were killed. The rock edicts clearly state, that 100K died, 150K enslaved, some number, a multiple of 100k were wounded(minimum of 200k, maximum unknown). The size of the armies was already given and estimated based on sources earlier in the thread: 640K vs 66.43K. It logically and mathematically improbable for a minimum of 350K killed via wounds/battle to be from a Kalingan army of 66.43. It is logically and mathematically improbable for Ashokan soldiers to die at a greater rate than Kalingan soldiers. Violence is confirmed by all three secondary sources. None of which are discredited. The one historian you cite doesn't give an objective reason, he just says whichever part of the Ashokavadana is discredited because he doesn't like what it says. That is doubt, not a definitive invalidation. He doesn't discredit the sources when they state that he murdered his brothers, when he builds a torture chamber manned by his pet psychopath(after his advisers tell him it looks bad when he executes people personally), or when they mention how he sets prostitutes on fire when they found his skin ugly. If one notices, none of those are even remotely contradicted by the edicts, so even if one were to attempt to discredit the three books claims of religious persecution based on perceived contradictions with the rock edicts, based on only one historian quoted in this thread, that isn't a valid reason to discredit the other three recorded heinous practices or to assume that he magically transported 150k slaves 800km because he had to. There is archaeological evidence that the walls of the city are riddled with of arrowheads. That is attacking a city, having no regards for civilians, and statistically improbable no civilians died when arrows are shot into a city. The city wasn't situated where its defensive position was enhanced. This makes it even more improbable that the Kalingans could disproportionately kill Ashokans to a high degree. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade literally disproves your point. If you were actually aware of the history, you would see how many people died during it. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=446 Quote The trans-Atlantic slave trade was the largest movement of people in history. Between 10 and 15 million Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic between 1500 and 1900. But this figure grossly understates the actual number of Africans enslaved, killed, or displaced as a result of the slave trade. At least 2 million Africans--10 to 15 percent--died during the infamous "Middle Passage" across the Atlantic. Another 15 to 30 percent died during the march to or confinement along the coast. Altogether, for every 100 slaves who reached the New World, another 40 had died in Africa or during the Middle Passage. And, like everyone rational, the historians and myself, an amateur, both know that transporting 150k slaves 800 km in the BCE era, is going to have some of them die. Unless you think there was plane or train travel, or is it that enslaving people was absolutely necessary? Maybe they all willingly gave themselves up to be slaves, (yeah right). I will re-post this Quote Here is a link on the weaknesses of primary sources: http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/guides/primary-sources/primary-sources/strengthsweakness http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Y0HPhPHOk8J:mercury.educ.kent.edu/database/eureka/documents/PrimaryandSecondarySourcesTeacherResource_handout.doc+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Quote Strengths: Provide information on the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of an event. Provide written, printed, or graphic information. Purpose of the communication or transaction is often clear. May indicate the social and economic status of the author. May offer insight into the emotional state of the author. Can stimulate the personal involvement of the reader. Weaknesses: May not be a thoroughly objective source; may not consider other views or perspectives on the same event(s). The identity of the author may be unclear (especially true in the case of government documents). The author is usually no longer living and thus cannot be consulted for verification. May be difficult to read (handwriting may be difficult to decipher); words or phrases may be unfamiliar and their meanings may have changed over time. Documents must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence to determine whether they present information that is exceptional or conforms to previously established patterns. Quote Strengths and Weaknesses of Primary Sources Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources. Although advisable to use primary sources if possible, writers may proceed to make use of secondary sources. Primary sources avoid the problem of secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings. However, a primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. There can be bias and simplification of events. These errors may be corrected in secondary sources when subjected to peer review. Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources they are using. A primary source such as journal entry (or online version, a blog) may only reflect one individual’s opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate or complete. Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate. For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias. As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it can be censored or altered for propaganda or cover-up purposes. The facts can be distorted to present the opposing sides in a negative light. Quote Historians use a wide variety of sources to answer questions about the past. In their research,history scholars use both primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources are actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, articles of clothing. Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing about events sometime after they happened. Primary sources offer an inside view of a particular event. On 1/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, Muloghonto said: All primary evidence is assumed true at face value. Because, as i said, we cannot prove a negative, i.e., we cannot prove that solitary sources of primary evidences are untrue You don't even read what you post yourself. From each of the links you provided: Your Link #1 http://guides.library.ucsc.edu/primarysecondary Quote 4. Defining questions When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered: How does the author know these details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene? Where does this information come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by others? Are the author's conclusions based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts, impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts)? Ultimately, all source materials of whatever type must be assessed critically and even the most scrupulous and thorough work is viewed through the eyes of the writer/interpreter. This must be taken into account when one is attempting to arrive at the 'truth' of an event. Notice it says all sources are to be critically examined, not just the ones that suit the agenda of some Anglo-Bangladeshi pole-vaulter. Your Link # 2 https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html Quote The five key questions: Questioning Primary Sources Knowing the differences between primary and secondary sources is the first step to better understanding the past. Once you have found your primary sources, it is important to question them to find out what they say and who made them. A primary source is created every time you send an email, take a photograph, or write in your journal. These primary sources reflect the worries, concern, or opinions you have when you create them. As you know, these documents can express feelings of love, joy, unhappiness or dislike. Sometimes the emotions of the creator or author can be clearly seen in primary sources. Other times, they are hidden. Sometimes a primary source will contain lies or mistaken information. Sometimes a primary source is actually a fake, made to look old and important. When looking at primary sources, there are several questions you should always ask to help you understand the material. These questions will also help you figure out if a source is authentic or fake. Authentic primary sources are great research material for projects, but you need to be careful of fake ones! Sometimes it will be easy to get the answers to your questions, and sometimes it will be impossible. Don't worry if it gets difficult -- just asking the questions is important. What: What is the primary source? Is it a photo? If so, is it in black and white or colour? Is it a letter? If so, is it typed, or handwritten? Who: Who wrote the letter, took the photo or painted the painting? Can you be sure it was really that person who made it? When: When was the primary source created? How can you tell its age? Where: Can you tell where the primary source was created? Why: Why was the primary source created? Does it tell a story? Is it a love letter? Is it an order from an officer to a soldier? Is it a picture of the Rocky Mountains? Does the primary source tell you why it was created? Can you guess why it was created? When you are studying a primary source, write down your answers to the five key questions. Do you think that the primary source is authentic? Do you think it is fake? An authentic source can tell you lots about the people, places, and events of the past. What did people think in the past? How did they talk to each other? What did they wear? You can find out for yourself using primary sources. A faked source can also tell you a lot. Why would someone go to all of that trouble to fool us? What were they hiding and what did they want us to think? Being a historian is a lot like being a detective, with primary sources as the evidence. It's your job to find out what really happened! Remember that history is never final. Accounts of the past are as different as the people who create them. That means there is lots of room for you to research and write your own story. Notice how it even gives a method for questioning primary sources. Your Link #3 https://www.uvic.ca/library/research/tips/primvsec/index.php Quote What is a primary source? A document or record containing first-hand information or original data on a topic A work created at the time of an event or by a person who directly experienced an event Some examples include: interviews, diaries, letters, journals, original hand-written manuscripts, newspaper and magazine clippings, government documents, etc. The history how to: primary sources guide has lots more information What is a secondary source? Any published or unpublished work that is one step removed from the original source, usually describing, summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, derived from, or based on primary source materials A source that is one step removed from the original event or experience A source that provides criticism or interpretation of a primary source Some examples include: textbooks, review articles, biographies, historical films, music and art, articles about people and events from the past No mention of accepting one or the other blindly. It simply lists what is considered each. Your Link #4 https://eee.uci.edu/faculty/losh/research/S1.html Quote Both primary sources and secondary sources play a role in the historian's task of gaining insight into the past. This source is a course guideline. Your Link #5 Quote · It is risky to take what the sources say at face value. Evaluate their testimony. Recognize that there is often a difference between what is said and what is really meant. Be alert for irony or conventional language, both of which mask the true meaning. Read between the lines. Torture the witnesses to force them to disclose their secrets. · All sources have biases and limitations. Their reliability and usefulness are determined by the questions asked of them. If your source can't be trusted to tell you facts, ask about opinions. For example, if someone swears that Elvis was abducted by Martians, the question you should ask is not, "Was ‘The King’ really snatched by space invaders?" but rather, "Why would an American living in the 1990s want to believe this story?" What does the existence of such a belief tell us about the individual, the society, or the era? Literally all 5 of the links you gave don't support the idea that one blindly accepts primary sources as fact. Furthermore, none of them explicitly say to discredit secondary sources. By your own links, while primary sources are preferred, they are still analyzed for bias and propaganda (ie beloved of the gods). While secondary sources are supplements to primary sources, they are still used to write history and are not automatically rejected (historians don't indulge in composition fallacy). Similar to the ending of the other thread. Quote me again, without providing sources, and I will report you for trolling. Back up your claims with data/citations, or continue your disingenuous, unproductive discussions with someone else. I don't have interest in TimesNow style opinion shouting matches where some anonymous, agenda driven poster thinks they can repeat their opinion endlessly. I'm not going to be convinced by someone looping their opinion endlessly and passing it off as history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 40 minutes ago, Tibarn said: The loop continues. A because A. Begging the question/circular argument. False, the actual historians have already accepted that civilians were killed. To disprove accepted history aka the null hypothesis, one has to provide sources that counter accepted history. There has been none presented. All you and the one historian you quoted are doing is picking and choosing which parts of secondary sources you want to discredit. That doesn't change history. That was never the argument. The objection wasn't about civillian casualties or slavery, it was towards the specific tag 'mass murderer'. All you have provided for that, is your own conjecture and failing to differentiate that the primary evidence doesnt support such a conclusion. Last i checked, the idea that 'Ashoka is a mass murderer' has no sway amongst historians and some categoric refutations of the idea amongst historical scholarship has also been presented. Quote You have no grounds to determine what is "scientific" as you are not a scientist, (as I showed in the other thread), and have no grounds to determine what is historical, as you are not a historian. You showed no such thing, you simply made a non sequitur argument based on the idea that 'any fool can take science courses in uni, it doesnt make you a scientist if you don't have the world science in your degree'. Yet, all you do, is ignore the idea that most engineers- especially of the 'fundamental three' - electrical, mechanical & chemical- spend more time than you lazy-pants 'scientists' in the their undergrad. And i will tell you one thing straight up bacchu- Electrical engineers are perhaps second only to accredited mathematicians when it comes to math. You have to be, or you don't pass. It also ignores the fact that people who have western Undergrad + masters degrees in Engineering, especially in my age group (aka 40-50) ALL have had to do thesis presentations that are no less in quality to you 'science' guys. The only reason we don't have more degrees to our names, is because ours is actually worth something to get us PAID 3x as your sorry selves will make at 25, by the time we are 21. And the most likely reason we get more degrees to our name, is either for a career change (me) or to teach. So your whole argument 'we engineers are not qualified to comment about what is scientific or not' is just laughable in its notion. Quote There is archaeological evidence that the walls of the city are riddled with of arrowheads. That is attacking a city, having no regards for civilians, and statistically improbable no civilians died when arrows are shot into a city. None of that implies 'mass murderer'. Reductio ad absurdum from you. If your definition is 'mass murder = civilian death = conquerors are all mass murderers, therefore 90% of kings/emperors are mass murderers', sure. Otherwise your argument lacks consistency. Quote The city wasn't situated where its defensive position was enhanced. This makes it even more improbable that the Kalingans could disproportionately kill Ashokans to a high degree. Has nothing to do with initial argument. It was established that the campaign lasted at-least a whole year, if not longer. At no point is it implied that it was just 'one and done' battle. So where the location of the capital city is, is irrelevant. Paris isn't also very defensible. But not every major assault on Paris itself was a genocide, nor was it the only battles that were fought when France got its ass kicked. Same applies to Kaligans. Sucks to be them to build there city where it got owned. These things, do not imply mass murderer. Quote While secondary sources are supplements to primary sources, they are still used to write history and are not automatically rejected Non sequitur. A source wouldn't be a source if it was automatically rejected. The point of secondary source, is to add layers that the Primary sources are lacking, flesh out an image, when possible. And its often only to a 'degree', since if the Secondary source doesnt automatically imply that it is part of a written continuum of history, it can be rife with errors, if its composed 400-500 years later based on a 'memory/image now'. That would be like going by what Shivaji did only by what people started writing today and throwing everything in the trash that is already written. The entire point of differentiating between primary & secondary sources is precisely for the purpose of conflicting info. And links provided demonstrate pretty effectively that secondary sources cannot decisively contradict primary source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Muloghonto said: That was never the argument. The objection wasn't about civillian casualties or slavery, it was towards the specific tag 'mass murderer'. All you have provided for that, is your own conjecture and failing to differentiate that the primary evidence doesnt support such a conclusion. Last i checked, the idea that 'Ashoka is a mass murderer' has no sway amongst historians and some categoric refutations of the idea amongst historical scholarship has also been presented. Still no sources. One source by the non-historian, a source that doesn't confirm what he says, and he thinks history has changed. Edited January 21, 2017 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tibarn said: Still no sources. One source by the non-historian, a source that doesn't confirm what he says, and he thinks history has changed. Categoric statement from historians have been provided many pages ago. You saying no, won't change it for all who can see the source. The fact that you are squirming all over the place, first questioning the relative integrities of primary & secondary sources, then trying to squeeze in secondary sources into the primary sources category, shows you have no idea on the very basics of citations and sources. Sad development for a would-be researcher! PS: YOU are the one trying to change history, by making claims (Ashoka = mass murderer) that no historian makes in the first place. Edited January 21, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) @TibarnDidn't want to beat up a dead horse but found this: (40:30 onwards) https://youtu.be/udqJUK-daMU?t=2429 Edited February 8, 2017 by surajmal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, surajmal said: @TibarnDidn't want to beat up a dead horse but found this: (40:30 onwards) https://youtu.be/udqJUK-daMU?t=2429 I appreciate what Sanyal is saying in most cases, though he has gotten a few things wrong. 1. He kind of paints all the invaders with the same brush, but IMO, the Kushans were deserving of respect in a way no other invaders are in Indian history: a) They sparked a golden age in Indian history. Kushan coin hordes stretching from Uzbekistan to UP is extensive. Also extensive artwork found of Kushan empire, in exquisite detail, indicating it was a rich time in Indian history. b) Kushans showed remarkable notion of stability : they effectively controlled allmost all of Afghanistan (minus the western-most portions), parts of southern 'Stan countries', Pakistan, up to UP-bihar border regions directly, with immediate direct vassalization of Magadh. For 150 years, there was remarkable stability in Northern subcontinent. c) Most important of all, they were a remarkable case of invading culture completely embracing the Indian way of life. They went from having names like 'Thilac//Kujuke' to having two Bhims as emperors, one Vasudeva, etc., they showed remarkable tolerance of all religions (which is decisive), since their coins themselves bear names of deities such as Iranic deities ( Ashah, Vohu, Mithra, Ahura Mazda), Buddhist demigods ( Buddha, Maitreya) as well as Shiva & Ganesha. 2. He is wrong about Ashoka. Simply because some of his fundamental thesis is wrong : a) Ashokan pillars are NOT in the middle of nowhere. They are located where ancient cities/modern day villages with prominent archeology is present. This destroys the argument that Ashokan pillars are propaganda, written 'for us' b) Romila Thapar points out, that even though Mauryan Empire was highly centralized, localization of power was also highly dominant feature- due to Mauryans not 'creating' a power network over previously tribal or toppling the mode of power (going from kingdoms to under Roman senate control, ala Roman expansion pre-empire) but assimilating it. The areas of India south up to Maharashtra-Orissa have had intercene history of struggle with eastern India (in the form of Magadha), stretching back to Buddha's lifetime and Ashoka wa almost 300 years later than the Buddha. This supposition of Thapar is actually worth merit, since the Ashokan pillars show a remarkable localization of the message. The ones in Kandahar are in Kharosti and Greek, the ones in Karnataka are in the local prakrit, the ones in Magadh are in Ardhamagadhi. This shows, decisively, that Ashokan pillars were FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE. Otherwise, he'd not have bothered carving them in local languages, all written in the Brahmi-Kharosti script. c) Ashokan pillars are actually an archeological anchor in history. It mentions 5 rulers of 5 foreign kings, of which we know existed historically, independently of Ashoka. He mentions by name 'Amityoko' (Antiochus II Theos, 261-246 BC) as a Greek, beyond whom he names 'Turamaye' (Ptolemy, 285-247 BC), Amitkini (Antigonos II, 278-239 BC), Maka (Maga of Cyrene, 300-258 BC) and Alikasudaro (Alexander II of Epirus, 272-258 BC). This is one of the unique evidences in world history, never mind just Indian history, where a civilization's leader names MULTIPLE foreign rulers by name. The names 'Alikasudaro, Maka, Turamaye and Amityoko' have distinct precedence in Indian history as 'Indianization' of Greek names. d) The composition era of the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa - both which were composed in the Southern Indian subcontinent (most likely Sri Lanka), comes around 300s-400s AD, with edits continuing through the next few centuries. This was a period of upheaval in the South, where Tamil literature mentions overthrow of the Buddhist-Jain Andhra Ikshvaku by the Pallavas and subsequent mass murders & genocides, which sets the extremely antagonistic tone in the Mahavamsa & Dipavamsa. Note: they were not averse to their own dose of mass killings and culture wars, either, as we can see with the Kalabhras dynasty, which also coincides with the composition & alteration periods of Dipavamsa & Mahavamsa. It is far more likely, that given Indian history does not have good record keeping traditions, the story of Ashoka got seen through this lens as a 'smiter of evil hindus'. e) it is also a CATEGORIC falsehood that Ashoka was forgotten in ancient India. For one, the early forefathers of the Gupta Empire (IIRC, Ghatotkacha) inscribed on Ashokan pillar himself. Not to mention, his pillar style was vastly copied by Indian as well as South-East Asian royalty. He also finds direct mention on a 13th century pillar in Thailand. Indicating that in pre-musliization of the Indian subcontinent, he was one of the longest-standing acknowledged monarch of Indian history. f) There is simply no evidence to suggest that the empire began disintegrating during his lifetime. It might've happened immediately after him, which is not surprising, given the scale of the empire and the undue pressure put on the Emperor by Chanakya's governing philosophy. This was the most populous & richest empire the world had seen in the entire 1st millennia BC and after Alexander's empire, also the largest by landmass. The fact that Ashoka lived a long time with many competing heirs also coud've complicated his succession. ( the fundamental weakness of the Magadha system of empire, right back to the days of Buddha, was stable succession. Numerous civil wars & murdering sprees are noted in what is otherwise, a very centrally powerful Magadha Empire) g) I also find it ironic, that this guy laments about our history being 'the history of invaders' and then promptly goes on to trash/alter the history of *the* most well documented 'son of the soil' from 1st millennia BC. Especially one, who serves as a unique and nearly irrefutable material evidence of being a 'regional & world dating anchor' to history. Edited February 9, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts