View Single Post
07-29-2014, 03:13 PM
Theokritos's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,243
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Sure, you can accept it on that basis, but passing it along as true on that basis is an appeal to authoriry. If you're going to pass something off as true, you should check your sources first.
If a historian tells me there was a battle between the Romans and the Parthians in Mesopotamia 53 BC then I have confidence enough in his - indeed - authority to believe and repeat the claim (provided it's not obviously wrong etc). There are limits of course. Would I pass it along unchecked in a book I happened to write? Not if the battle was of importance for the subject I decided to treat. If the battle was a side issue however, I would do it without having a bad conscience.

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I would suggest this is a reason to treat it more skeptically, not less skeptically. Matters that many people have had occasion to look into are more likely to have been researched already, more likely to have had errors corrected. Little-known claims are generally also little-researched claims, and as such it's more likely to contain errors.
That's a valid notion, but I was referring to people on this forum only. The 1913 tournament has not really been a subject of interest and importance worth a closer look to them so far.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote