If we assume that there is another life on other planets, who will represent the land in negotiation and understanding with them. Some scientists saw in this quest to discover distant planets where life is not only a waste of time but a waste of effort and waste of money rather than focusing on the great problems the Earth is experiencing, such as global warming that threatens the future of mankind.

'Historical Truth?, You Can't Handle Historical Truth!'

Yes we cannot handle historical truth to some extent; because it may contain the elements that are contradictory to our known knowledge, set truths and beliefs.

But, yes the people with higher order of thinking and logical abilities can handle it, who can see through that whatever we have heard, read, believe in our entire life was not completely true.

I like your premise. It reminds me of the film MacCabe and Mrs. Miller, wherein, instead of the time-honored and honorable classic Western face-to-face quick-draw shootout, we get MacCabe shooting his opponents in the back from hidden positions. I can imagine many folks refusing to accept the aliens' revelations and dismissing them as fake news. (Not too different from the current situation: many wouldn't accept a video showing the filling out of Obama's birthday certificate if it were available. And the Americans never landed on the moon either.) 😜

Hey Karl, If you are a film buff try to get hold of 'Bliss' with Barry Otto - if you haven't seen it then you are in for a treat. Barry Otto's performance is wonderful - another time, another universe - he would have got an Oscar for his performance. The Australians simply do not get enough credit for their artistic output.

Unlike physical events, historical events are unique and non-repeatable. Notably, the credibility of written accounts of past events that have survived to our time may be tainted by the perspective and intentions of the historians. Moreover, when these accounts are read and interpreted, there is a possibility that they become further tainted by the prejudices , preconceived experiences ,and personal beliefs of the readers. On this basis, it is very difficult to attest a historical claim and to prove the truth of a course of an event. Therefore, for organizing, compartmentalizing , and categorizing past events, we should be very careful about their truths and untruths because such a task is very complicated. Because of such complexity, historians prefer to speak of historical validity rather than historical truth. As Oscar Wilde once said: " The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”

Dr Biria,

Until recently our view of history is been 'sepia tainted' and time distorted as a consequence of the recording technologies available at the time.

I recently saw a restored film of Scott's failed Antarctic expedition. I was astonished at the psychological/cognitive effect of the restoration. It was as though a hand had reached over the event horizon of history and brought something back into view and made it real again. It was as though history (or my perception of it) had been foreshortened. Scott and all of his comrades were transformed by the restoration from myths back into men!"

I agree, history is a complex dialogue between the past and the present (in this respect I would recommend E H Carr - What is History), nevertheless, historians themselves are always searching for material evidence and unwitting testimony. What could be more material and unwitting than the sounds and images recorded at the time by a drone?

That will really be interesting. Hope that happens soon.

Thank God this could never happen.

A week next Tuesday, Segun.

Dr Noori, Why?

I think, "historical truth" is a claim which should not give lost with the note: unique events of the past cannot be brought back. No, the scientific claim to reconstruct historical truth in order to approach it remains untouched by practical difficulties. First, a piece of the past - let's say, some historical event or person - that we want to recognize has its own own context of origin in shape, behavior, effects etc. - that it is, has its own past that we must take into account.

Second, we can try to present the past analytically from the facts we find. There will probably be many gaps, the claim of this research concept - one can call it pejoratively "positivistic" - consists in depicting the actual reality, if possible without it being "polluted" by our current knowledge and our current moral conception of this event or the person.

Third, one evaluates the past, judges it whether it was "good" or "bad", progressive or retrograde. From this point of view, the question is often asked: What can we learn from the past? Political left wing and Political right wing interpretations tend zu a morally valuating view which sticks labels to the acting historical persons, and this a problematical in my modest understanding of historical methods.

So once again: There are different methods of approaching the past as an object of historical science from a scientific point of view and dealing with it. But the question of interpretation and (moral) evaluation will probably turn out differently and can be discussed controversially.

HEIN RETTER

If we assume that there is another life on other planets, who will represent the land in negotiation and understanding with them. Some scientists saw in this quest to discover distant planets where life is not only a waste of time but a waste of effort and waste of money rather than focusing on the great problems the Earth is experiencing, such as global warming that threatens the future of mankind.

Dear Dr Omran,

I sympathise with what you have written.

However, we are simply not dealing with our problems.

If I thought for one moment that abandoning space exploration would help stop global warming and revive our dying world I would be all for it.

I think that part of the reason that I am fascinated by the idea that we might soon meet beings from another planet is that it offers a ray of hope that there might be a way forward:- that we might solve our problems.

Isolationist thinking promotes self interest and obscures the bigger picture. If we were faced with the fact of other beings more advanced than ourselves it might offer an incentive to think beyond the 'overcrowded moment' of our provincial and (all to often) venal lives and imagine how things might be if only we took responsibility for our future as well as for our present.

Chris

Good question

Thanks, Thulfiqar.

It seems so strange and ironic that after some 4 billion years of evolution and 3 thousand years of philosophy the one thing that might shake the very foundations of our world should be the truth!

I think several of you have pointed out that it is not necessarily the medium that distorts the message. Psychology and the cognitive stance that we adopt with respect to the world around us and to knowledge is determined developmentally by that set of boundary conditions that we term the environment - the place and time in which we live.

Of course the environment of human beings extends beyond the physical and also includes the accumulated wisdom of mankind - its stories, films. books, etc

On first exposure to 'The Complete and Unabridged History of Mankind' we may well be psychologically, socially and politically ill prepared for the revelations that such a document may contain. However, once the gift has been given it would then become part of our environment and we would be forced to change in order to accommodate it.

I would rather be forced to adapt to a truth than to a lie. Evolutionarily speaking, it would seem to make more sense.

Christopher James Davia

I dunno about Bliss. The sisterly BJ reminded me I had previously seen it in Saskatoon back in 1985-86. I think I am more discerning now, but I still don't find it a satisfying whole. I just watched Wake in Fright (1971) which, in line with the theme of your question, captures a historical moment that some Australians might prefer to turn up their noses at. That brilliant British actor Donald Pleasence has a supporting role.

Point well made: Wake in Fright! - creepy, cruel and hammers its point home with a horrible butchery.

I think I prefer my films just a touch less REAL!

I hope the film is understood in the spirit in which it was intended!

I watched it once, I can't watch it anymore!

There are some very uncomfortable moments in Bliss, too. I think that the reason that I have such respect for the film, is that it is structured (quite consciously) around a sequence of stories :- either those told by the various characters in the drama, or else, the stories that we enshrine in our culture and religious beliefs. These stories maybe personal, fictional - some of them are just plain lies - the film itself does not judge these stories.

The film explores the existential crisis of the Australian soul (in this respect - similar to Wake in Fright) through a sequence of narratives and events each informing and qualifying the other such that its effect is to make events depicted in certain scenes that would otherwise seem ludicrous somehow strangely plausible, whilst, at the same time, scenes, depicting quite believable events seem quite insane!

I write stories myself and I think of myself as a fairly good narrator - (you can find some stuff on youtube under Christophe Davia - Burglar - The Rose in the Winter Garden..etc). Barry Otto is one of the finest story tellers I have ever heard. The film could have been made for him.

In terms of the quality of the performances - quite honestly - there is no comparison. Barry Otto and the supporting cast were all wonderful.

I appreciate that sometimes films become anachronistic and go out of style for a number of reasons - a tragic example is David Carradine's - Americana - By the time it was released it had become redundant - nevertheless, one of the finest low Budget films made in America at that time.

Films don't go out of date - people do!

C

I think we are very good at not merely observing what happened but assigning moral relevance to actions.

So if we were offered the opportunity to go back and look at Jesus and discover that he was a single guy in his mid 30s never known to have a wife or girlfriend, hanging around with a bunch of other grubby guys, without a weeks wages between the lot of them, what might we think?

I doubt the believers would bat an eyelash and those who were religious skeptics would look for support for their ridicule.

Truths are what matter most to man. Facts are disposable supporting materials.