tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4394832859720503332..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Just supposeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88875317111520946092012-06-20T16:17:03.528-04:002012-06-20T16:17:03.528-04:00Or what would an account of Keith Parsons look lik...Or what would an account of Keith Parsons look like if he'd been born in the 1C AD, and a 1C historian wrote his biography?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2133720836334300112012-06-20T16:06:41.481-04:002012-06-20T16:06:41.481-04:00For that matter, what would an account of Keith Pa...For that matter, what would an account of Keith Parsons have looked like had it been written by a historian with the resources, aims, and methods of a modern critical historian from the 51st century? Now, of course we do not know what our imaginary future historian would have concluded, but it should be abundantly clear that his product would be very different from 21st century historical records.<br /><br />(Or, less analogously, perhaps we could substitute modern science - e.g. say something already controversial like neo-Darwinism or something less so like the standard model in particle physics - with future science. It could be future science will have improved resources, aims, and methods than modern science, or it could be future science is actually a step or many backwards. Who's to say? But either way it should be "abundantly clear" that future scientific theories could be very different from the modern scientific theories.)rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.com