Denis,

Nice walk-through in response to the statements and questions. I wish I could have put it that well. Again, nicely done.

My $.02

(I have not been compensated for my views; that is a fact and the truth)

Concluding that it is fiction implies the author made the whole thing up. I don't see that as giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd say, supposing that the author made a mistake, or simplified, or extrapolated, or whatever, would be more charitable; that the author's intent is still honest and the rest of what they wrote may still be valid and useful.

For example, there are wildlife documentaries about lions hunting, that actually cut together scenes from several different hunts to make a coherent narrative, without informing the audience they have done so. The result isn't literally true, but still shows the lions' general behaviour in a truthful and useful way. All journalist includes distortion, because of editing; not everything can be included. You have to decide whether you trust the journalist.

Hard to say without an example. If I catch them out in a minor detail, then it's the same as above. If it's a major detail that they know is impossible but are claiming is a miracle or some such, then, in my view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not much inclined to cut such authors much slack. I am pretty much starting from the position that they are, at best, misinterpreting whatever they saw anyway.

Your acceptance of the work as a whole seems to very often boil down to answering this question: "Is a mistruth, misconception, different perception, opinion or un/sub-validated claim, etc. the same thing as a lie?"

Sometimes they did.
Sometimes they took a few facts and created a whole new scenario out of their head.
Sometimes they collected what the thought were facts and came up with a reasonable scenario, just to find out the original 'facts' weren't facts at all.
Sometimes they pass off theory as fact.
Sometimes, they simply don't know what they're talking about.

But when people come up with stuff, they really need to label it as fact or fiction or theory or opinion.

If you've ever read The Amityville Horror: A True Story by Jay Anson (1977), would you say it's truth or fiction?

Sue

1. YES! Otherwise its fiction. That isn't to say that you can't be mistaken.

2. No.

3. See clarification to 1.

'Fiction' and 'Non-Fiction' are nothing more than bookstore classifications to facilitate shopping. They are not a guarantee of the purity of a books' contents.

On religion, I'll take the bait: I don't think you can compare non-fiction books like a cookbook or an auto repair manual with a bible.

Organized religion represents a human attempt to explain and codify an innate spiritual feeling and/or yearning most humans across all cultures possess.

Human institutions like religion, politics, and education are fraught with frailty, and some of these (maybe all) have been corrupted from time to time by power and money.

Right on! I like to think I write non-fiction, but my field is archaeology, so you never know for sure.....

I want to avoid getting too deep in religion but I hard something someone one said that sums up organized religion quite well. "Religion is man seeking God."

Jeanette Isabelle

True, but you can't compare historical works of antiquity like Tacticus or Herodotus to a cookbook or auto repair manual either; it's a category error.

However, these great works can be tested for historic fidelity; they are just tested differently than you would test a cookbook or an auto repair manual. The tools that one would use to test these other works of antiquity are the ones that need be used when testing the veracity of something like the writings in the Bible.


A guy I used to listen to a bit has a good saying: "If you want to mess something up, all you need is two things: people and time." (Matt Slick)