View Single Post
07-29-2014, 12:37 PM
Theokritos's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,448
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Do you mean enough to be accepted as probably true? I certainly don't agree if it's something you're going to pass off as true yourself, repeating the claim to others.
If the claim comes from someone whose profession gives me reason to assume he knows what he's talking about? And the claim is not obviously wrong, inconsistent, biased or questionable for any other reason? Yes, then I'm going to assume it is probably true, even if no further evidence is given at that point.

Let's say I hear a historian mentioning that a Roman army was defeated by the Parthians at Carrhae 53 BC. He doesn't say anything about the sources of information. Do I reject his claim? No, I accept it for the time being, assuming he's familiar with the historic sources and knows how to deal with them. And I have no issue repeating the claim to others.

Now of course, when I'm interested in the subject and want to look deeper into it I'm going to ask the historian for the sources and I'm going to check them myself to see what's in them and what's not, how credible they are and so on.

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Now, you might say that we're just discussing hockey and bandy history, in the grand scheme of things they're unimportant, so does it really matter if we apply relatively rigorous skepticism to it? I think it does matter, we here obviously consider it an important subject and as such we should care whether the things we believe about it are true.
While I agree with you that hockey history is anything but unimportant for us here, the particular case of the 1913 European Bandy Championship was hardly of any importance in the debates around here so far. I guess only a few were even aware of that tournament. More of a footnote, not a matter people had occasion to look into.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote