Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

Post #78

Skwim said:


Thing is, only a very, very small handful of historians are eye-witnesses. Reputable historians take information from as many sources as they can or deem necessary, and then present their information as provisional conclusions —the unstated provisional aspect is expected to understood by the reader, just as conclusions by scientists always come with the unstated, but implicit, qualification that they are not absolute facts No reputable historian would ever claim all their conclusions are absolutely, 100% factual, particularly those involving the particulars of an event. It’s not how they work. So, in a very real sense the conjectures of historians are opinions. Some based on damn good evidence, and some on hardly any evidence at all. Moreover, pronouncements about history don’t gain any more validity if made part of the public record than if they lay unseen and gathering dust on the the historian’s closet shelf.

paarsurrey said:

paarsurreyAn Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
An excellent and thought revealing post.
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please

Paarsurrey wrote:

paarsurreyAn Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

I don’t agree with you.
Quran is more than the history. Quran is 100% correct, while history/historians could be anything between 0 % to below 100% from case to case.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: