Historians, what is the profit of doubting?

Question

Skepticism was once a vice, then a virtue, and now it seems to be a vice again. I watched a program that featured historians that doubted the historicity of King Arthur. Of course they wrote books about it. Designed to create some paradigm shift among the stupid masses that were duped into believing he actually existed.

Of course, I can only go on these skeptical historians interpretations, which is largely just radical skepticism coupled with conspiracy theory, which is pointless because it's unprovable, and it breeds confusion since it's up against other historians that don't doubt the historicity of King Arthur.

So what's the point? Why do they create some elaborate hoax conspiracy theory and bore the masses with radical skepticism, just because the evidence comes from Monks that hand-copied the evidence, which was all that was available since photography and video cameras and "party-of-no scholars" weren't around back then to turn the past into some kind of fluid nightmare of doubt? What is the gain of promoting fruitless and unprovable conspiracy theories other than to sell to some books, appear on tv shows, and make a name for yourself as someone that did the "revolutionary act" of fruitless skepticism?

I have no emotional attachment to King Arthur, by the way. But this trend of skepticism has lost it's magic. I'm just curious what it is these historian hacks are trying to accomplish. I'm curious why they think their skepticism should be held in a higher respect than those who produced the evidence (such as cloistered Monks copying documents, who are always charged as conspirators involved in some diabolical plot against mankind, *rolls eyes*).

Why are historians boring us with conspiracy theory?

Answer 1

The point of historical research is supposed to be to discover the truth. Whether the research is or is not “boring” to some people should be irrelevant.



I might as well asking why you are “boring” people with your question, which I am not.



“... who are always charged as conspirators involved in some diabolical plot against mankind, *rolls eyes*”



Usually they are charged only with inventing unhistorical details for their saints lives or forging relics. True some of them may have been innocent dupes.



If scepticism has lost its magic to you, then I suppose you must believe. So believe that every saints life is historically true, even though they are often inconsistent with one another and with what is known of the history of the time. Believe that every holy relic is genuine. Believe that everything recorded in every Arthurian romance actually happened, including flying chessboards and a talking fox, even though the romances are often inconsistent with one another.



Demand that supposed history must be “interesting” and that “truth” doesn’t matter.



In the case of King Arthur, as most historians know, there isn't enough evidence to be sure one way or the other on most issues, But King Arthur is a nut magnet, and one can sometimes make a great deal of money, or at least a reasonable amount of money, by proposing a new theory, whether it be to prove or disprove something about King Arthur, rather than something about King Pedro the Cruel of Castille or some other monarch not known at all to most people.



Those doing it, who are successful, are being “interesting”, not “boring”, to sufficient people that they make their money. But a lot of it isn’t history. The same goes with science. There are also lots, and lots of crank science books out there, sometimes written by true believers and sometimes by money-grubbers. And there are religious book after religious book that disagree with on another. And there are political book after political book and economics texts after economics texts.



And there are producers of what should be informative shows who realize they are really in the entertainment business and are more interested in raising controversy and being “interesting” than discovering the truth. It is those producers you should be blaming and the network people as they are the ones putting out the crap history documentaries. And you should be blaming “individual” historians. But the networks are doing such shows because it is crap, sensationalistic shows that often brings in the audience, enabling the television station to sell more to sponsors.



“Paradigm shifts” among the masses is NOT history. But if you were to actually study some of the monkish charters and monkish claims you might not be so gullible. Roll your eyes all you want. That proves nothing.



What is your answer? To do no historical research at all? To believe everything anyone has ever said? To create shows that that claim to prove that Saint Patrick and Saint Mungo were buried at Glastonbury as the monks claimed, despite other, more believable claims from other sites.



Name calling people you don't identify as “hacks” doesn't help.



The profit in doubting is that sometimes one can show that it is right to doubt, that something that has been widely believed to have happened didn’t, at least in the way it was believed to have happened. Another form of profit is that if you can take on a large organization like the Roman Catholic Church or the US government, and show that it is corrupt, then you can make some money, especially from those who want to believe you, whether what you say is true or not.



What is your point? What are you trying to accomplish, exactly? Are you suggesting that those who encourage what you call conspiracy theories should not have so much latitude on television. Then complain to the television network about particular shows that bother you. And claim that they should be more skeptical about such theories. And name names. Don't just refer to unnamed “radically ‘skeptical'” historians, or it looks like you are imagining a conspiracy of “radically skeptical” historians and creating a conspiracy theory of your own.



Wouldn’t the Gnostics, according to you, have been better if they had been more skeptical of their own theories?



What should be accomplished by skeptical historians is to make people less likely to believe anything only because they read it somewhere or heard it somewhere or just want to believe something, including the theories of any skeptical historians. Also media history specials often misrepresent the people they interview, including the historians. If this produces “boring” television for all watchers, they would stop. But what has driven you to this rant appears to be that such television sensationalistic, pseudo-historical presentations are popular enough that more of them are being made. They aren’t boring to sufficient people, unfortunately.

Answer 2

Generally, conspiracy theorists are not historians. History is a soft science, and any statement a historian makes must be backed up by peer-reviewed sources. Conspiracy theorists almost never pass the test of peer review.



Doubt is fundamentally important to understanding history, just as it is to any field of science. Without it, there is no difference between history and mythology. This isn't a pessimistic cynicism, but a willingness to keep an open mind and an unending need for verification. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, history is the search for fact, not truth. If there is no doubt, then there is no fact; only what you believe to be true.



As for King Arthur, there is no evidence to support the legend (Merlin, the Lady in the Lake, Lancelot and Guenevere, etc.). It is mythology, and like all mythologies is certainly based in some distant fact: a great Celtic king from before the Roman period. Any evidence that does support that assertion is loose at best, and we are not able to corroborate it.



To sum up: the point of skepticism is that if we accepted everything at face value, we would still think that the Sun orbits the Earth.

Answer 3

History is part art and part science. The science aspect is that genuine historical work operates by interpreting historical evidence. In order to arrive at any probable knowledge, the historian must ask tough questions about what the sources say, how they are to be interpreted, how trustworthy they are, etc. That is just being a responsible scholar.



In the case of King Arthur, who, if he existed, would have lived in the fifth century, our total evidence consists of some fairly brief references in a ninth-century chronicler (Nennius), then suddenly the elaborate story told by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the eleventh century and a sudden tidal wave of twelfth-century chivalric literature. In other words, for a good 500 years or so there is absolute silence in the written sources about this person. So was he a real king or a legend? Is there any clear reason to believe that Nennius or Geoffrey had access to reliable documentation about him that has been lost to us? The answer there is not really, though it's always possible.



If I were to tell you a story about someone who lived five hundred years ago, you would ask me how I knew all this. If I couldn't produce any documentation, you would assume that I had made the story up. The King Arthur stories are beautiful and there is always someone who wants to insist that they are true. But the evidence is simply lacking.



I don't know where this bit of a "conspiracy theory" comes from. Sounds a bit History Channel to me, which can be exciting television but is usually terrible history. One doesn't need to assert a conspiracy to say that Nennius and Geoffrey were passing down legends with little if any basis in fact.