Comments on: The Slovak people: original settlement http://firstword.us/2008/05/the-slovak-people-original-settlement/ How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first? Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:33:32 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: TJH http://firstword.us/2008/05/the-slovak-people-original-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-2609 TJH Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:51:17 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/351#comment-2609 Mr Hodgson -- First let me clarify that the paragraph with map about the splitting of the Slav tribes in 400-600 was derived from internet sources, not the book. But that information seems to be consistent with other accounts. The book was published, as far as I can tell, apart from any Russian authorities, let alone in service to some claim of legitimacy Russians might make. It would be just as easy to claim Slovak hegemony over Russia as vice-versa, so far as the splitting of the Slav tribes is concerned. So I find you nervousness in that regard unwarranted. As to the book, if you have specific information, then please disclose it. But apart from specifics you might provide, I find your advice too harsh. The notion that because a book is published in 1951, one cannot believe that there was such a man as Methodius without cross-checking, seems prima facie absurd to me. Or, if that is so, then the book would be of no value at all -- unless there is no book on the subject anywhere of which the same could not be said. Accuracy is not achieved by mixing biases. Of course, one should check controversial theses -- of which I have no clue what you might think to be one in what I posted above -- against the arguments of those holding the opposite view. But this method is useful for cross-examination to make sure no stone was unturned, not because the truth is necessarily some kind of golden mean. Mr Hodgson — First let me clarify that the paragraph with map about the splitting of the Slav tribes in 400-600 was derived from internet sources, not the book. But that information seems to be consistent with other accounts. The book was published, as far as I can tell, apart from any Russian authorities, let alone in service to some claim of legitimacy Russians might make. It would be just as easy to claim Slovak hegemony over Russia as vice-versa, so far as the splitting of the Slav tribes is concerned. So I find you nervousness in that regard unwarranted.

As to the book, if you have specific information, then please disclose it. But apart from specifics you might provide, I find your advice too harsh. The notion that because a book is published in 1951, one cannot believe that there was such a man as Methodius without cross-checking, seems prima facie absurd to me. Or, if that is so, then the book would be of no value at all — unless there is no book on the subject anywhere of which the same could not be said.

Accuracy is not achieved by mixing biases. Of course, one should check controversial theses — of which I have no clue what you might think to be one in what I posted above — against the arguments of those holding the opposite view. But this method is useful for cross-examination to make sure no stone was unturned, not because the truth is necessarily some kind of golden mean.

]]> By: David Hodgson http://firstword.us/2008/05/the-slovak-people-original-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-2610 David Hodgson Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:42:34 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/351#comment-2610 I would be very careful with historic texts from that period, and recommend that more recent sources are checked before believing any of the statements. At that time the Russian authorities had an interest in emphasising the essential unity of the lands they occupied and so giving their occupation historic legitamacy. That's not to say the information is wrong, just that it needs to be checked against other sources. All sources have their biases (albeit not as strong as the Communist party propaganda), and hopefully a mixture of bias will get closer to accuracy. I would be very careful with historic texts from that period, and recommend that more recent sources are checked before believing any of the statements.

At that time the Russian authorities had an interest in emphasising the essential unity of the lands they occupied and so giving their occupation historic legitamacy.

That’s not to say the information is wrong, just that it needs to be checked against other sources. All sources have their biases (albeit not as strong as the Communist party propaganda), and hopefully a mixture of bias will get closer to accuracy.

]]>