- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is anyone familiar with Phantom Time Hypothesis?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:01 pm to kingbob
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
The whole purpose is to question what you think you know and wonder about what we take for granted as truth that might very well not have any basis in fact at all.
You realize that there is a field called historiography that works to find out what is reliable and what isn't? Procopius describes a battle in 530 at Dara. Other sources not related to Procopius mention that battle. We have an archaeological record of a battle occurring during that time period. We can safely assume that a battle did indeed occur there at 530, regardless of when the source was copied.
These points might be salient if we didn't have the historiographic method that we do. In fact, it's that historiographic method which separates ancient, modern, Classical, and Victorian work from contemporary work. It's a fairly robust field as well, and much historical work takes place in it. This whole theory acts as if this tradition doesn't exist.
1
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:05 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
This whole theory acts as if this tradition doesn't exist.
Which is why I state at the beginning that I think it's f&%king crazy, but still interesting to think about.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:25 pm to kingbob
It's not that interesting, honestly, not even as a thought experiment. Anyone with any passing familiarity with that time period should realize how plainly stupid it is.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:00 pm to OysterPoBoy
Problem with that theory is that medieval records of astrological events from that time period, such as the passing of Halley's Comet, match up with today's records.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:37 pm to kingbob
he doesn't get it, hit him with the mud flood! 
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:42 pm to spaceranger
quote:
does this mean that its actually 1721 and not 2018?
Nice, that means if I stay healthy I can hopefully live through the Revolutionary War when it gets here in the 1770s.
That's how this works, right?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:48 pm to OysterPoBoy
Have you heard about the Phantom Phantom Time Hypothesis?
Basically, fringe historians create ridiculous theories with circumstantial support and peddle and use them for notoriety.
Basically, fringe historians create ridiculous theories with circumstantial support and peddle and use them for notoriety.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 2:12 pm to kingbob
quote:
The whole point is that we can't trust any sources which causes the whole theory to become a reducto ad absurdum. The whole purpose is to question what you think you know and wonder about what we take for granted as truth that might very well not have any basis in fact at all. The fact that you could make the same intellectually lazy arguments to discount literally every historical record makes the whole theory completely absurd on its face.
For the most part, there are multiple sources, in terms of works, and of the "copiers." There are certainly slight variances here and there, but when different scribes in various geographic areas and from different backgrounds, usually with very different values and motives, get the story about the same, it is actually strong evidence for historical events. Kind of the opposite of the simplistic cockamamey you have going with the OP hypothesis.
Questioning is good. But you have to question the questioning as well. In this case, the challenge to the status quo is far more overtly improbable than the status quo. At least based on documentary evidence and some experience and understanding of basic human nature.
You want to talk about intellectual laziness? The whole premise of the OP, like most "Unified Field" or "Grand" conspiracy theories, is the epitome of intellectual laziness, with a hint of religion thrown in.
Is anyone to believe that these disparate, ego maniacal despots would work together, and in such an organized fashion? That's without even considering that non-Western history completely disproves the silly thought. Unless all the empires, kingdoms, etc in Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia conspired for something that huge?
It is not intellectually provoking or open minded. It is flat out dumb.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 2:16 pm to OysterPoBoy
That is interesting. I do know the Romans slanted history bigly. And the Anglos followed suit with the raids, then settling of western Europe.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 2:58 pm to tigahbruh
quote:
It is not intellectually provoking or open minded. It is flat out dumb.
That sting baw.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:50 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
Phantom II
Like
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:37 pm to STLDawg
quote:
Basically, fringe historians create ridiculous theories with circumstantial support and peddle and use them for notoriety.
Is this really any different than sports writers, movie reviewers, journalists and bogging SJW's making "hot takes" trolling for clicks?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News