I’ve come to accept that reality is far less important to our daily lives than narratives.
I mean, it’s a real depressing understanding of the world, but after you embrace it, you learn to work around it and it can even be a huge asset or tool for getting results and interacting with others.
For me personally, I want to learn the disappointing truth about everything, but for the vast majority of people, they will live their whole lives without ever needing or wanting to learn who actually said or did what in history. It’s fine. We can keep building stories to influence people to do better things. There is no cosmic arbiter of truth who is going to judge people for spreading a story that leads to better outcomes.
I don’t agree here. Truth is important. The fact that women haven’t been visible in science is important. We need to explain why they weren’t visible. Creating historical figures is comforting but if their existence is not reliably documented, we should keep explaining why such figures couldn’t emerge, and why their absence is significant.
Yes to shitposts, no to fabrications (this lady looks like one - but I suppose it was in good faith)
What if the truth can’t be known as Ibn Abi Zar only wrote on this 500 years later and archaeological evidence is not definitive but the story has inspired countless young women in the Islamic world to pursue higher learning?
If an unverifiable story accomplishes the outcome of improving the visibility of women in science and higher education in general, how should we judge that? Would only 100% verifiable truth still take all precedence?
Finally, we have to ask why did this story (if it really is just a story) capture so many imaginations? What cultural current at the time made this gain popularity? Was there a thirst for women to be seen in this light that he was looking to quench?
The humanities may be considered a soft science but it’s just as important as science in my view.
I think that both are important and can be used together as a tool. Idealism grounded in materialism. The legend itself is a tool for further discussions and inspiration. There’s a lot of power in simple ideas.
OK, I get your point - but I think then that it should be clearer if we’re talking about a historical figure or a legend. In this particular case, it’s a bit fuzzy unfortunately. Ancient historians and all that.
Science is a conversation, just like the Humanities. :) Being wrong is okay, it’s just a chance for further discussions. That’s why I encourage a bit of freeform experimenting in this space.
You know that episode of The Simpsons where Lisa hides the fact the town founder is a bad person because it’d make the town sad?
That is me trying to hold back that, upon research (reading the Wikipedia page), I found out that Fatima al-Fihriya is probably not a real person :(
I’ve come to accept that reality is far less important to our daily lives than narratives.
I mean, it’s a real depressing understanding of the world, but after you embrace it, you learn to work around it and it can even be a huge asset or tool for getting results and interacting with others.
For me personally, I want to learn the disappointing truth about everything, but for the vast majority of people, they will live their whole lives without ever needing or wanting to learn who actually said or did what in history. It’s fine. We can keep building stories to influence people to do better things. There is no cosmic arbiter of truth who is going to judge people for spreading a story that leads to better outcomes.
Its not healthy to bury yourself in a false reality.
Thats some crazy ass shit.
This is a crazy take. Misinformation is not all of the sudden good when it has a positive outcome.
Difficult to verify does not mean untrue.
Sometimes legends are important.
I don’t agree here. Truth is important. The fact that women haven’t been visible in science is important. We need to explain why they weren’t visible. Creating historical figures is comforting but if their existence is not reliably documented, we should keep explaining why such figures couldn’t emerge, and why their absence is significant.
Yes to shitposts, no to fabrications (this lady looks like one - but I suppose it was in good faith)
What if the truth can’t be known as Ibn Abi Zar only wrote on this 500 years later and archaeological evidence is not definitive but the story has inspired countless young women in the Islamic world to pursue higher learning?
If an unverifiable story accomplishes the outcome of improving the visibility of women in science and higher education in general, how should we judge that? Would only 100% verifiable truth still take all precedence?
Finally, we have to ask why did this story (if it really is just a story) capture so many imaginations? What cultural current at the time made this gain popularity? Was there a thirst for women to be seen in this light that he was looking to quench?
The humanities may be considered a soft science but it’s just as important as science in my view.
Or, if she did exist but almost nobody heard about her in the 500 years after her death, why would that have happened?
(Not taking a position on her existence, but thinking about Hatshepsut and many women whose accomplishments were ignored, hidden, or credited to men)
I think that both are important and can be used together as a tool. Idealism grounded in materialism. The legend itself is a tool for further discussions and inspiration. There’s a lot of power in simple ideas.
OK, I get your point - but I think then that it should be clearer if we’re talking about a historical figure or a legend. In this particular case, it’s a bit fuzzy unfortunately. Ancient historians and all that.
Science is a conversation, just like the Humanities. :) Being wrong is okay, it’s just a chance for further discussions. That’s why I encourage a bit of freeform experimenting in this space.