You claimed that "This is showing ignorance of the overall historical method used to make some of these determinations.", so I asked you to provide just one example to back up your claim. If you can't then just say so. OK, it was a rhetorical question because I know you can't, if someone could have they would have simply presented it by now, just as we did for Pontius Pilate.
Do your work. What scholarships do you even know?
Research Concepts in Human Behavior, G. C. Helmstadter, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
rentice-Hall Inc, 1970
1.
Historical problems in a special field
1.1. The time period studied is recent history where facts are available but have not yet been gathered together
1.1.1. Cross sectional
1.1.2. Longitudinal
1.2. The time period studied is sufficiently long ago that records of events are not complete.
1.2.1. Application of scientific method.
1.2.1.1. A hypothesis as to what happened may be formulated on the basis of those pieces of information already at hand.
1.2.1.2. Deduce consequences that should be present if the hypotheses is true, but may not have been found yet.
1.2.1.3. Seek to verify the hypothesis by searching for this additional information.
1.2.1.3.1. Finding such evidence dramatically increases confidence in the original speculation. This is in contradiction to experimental situations where finding confirmation adds relatively little confidence because the alternatives which could have produced the same observations are so numerous
1.2.1.3.2. Not finding such evidence is not particularly discouraging because of the great likelihood that the appropriate material has been lost rather than never having existed. This is in contradiction to experimental situations where failure to find confirmation can lead to complete rejection of the hypothesis.
2.
Special features of the historical approach.
2.1. Dependence upon observations that cannot be repeated in the same sense that a laboratory experiment or a descriptive survey can.
2.2. Observations are often not organized or conveniently recorded for solving a particular problem, requiring great patience and willingness to engage in tedious research.
2.3. Studies tend to be carried out by individuals and not by teams, increasing the research burden.
2.4. The historical approach does not always carry a defined hypothesis, due to its increased dependence upon inductive reasoning. A "question type" hypothesis, often unstated, is often used to sift through specific observations and generalize a description of what actually occurred.
2.5. Results of historical studies are often reported in a more narrative and much less rigid style than is usual with other research approaches.
3.
The procedures of historical research.3.1. Collection of data.
3.1.1. Notes.
3.1.1.1. Types of notes.
3.1.1.1.1. Bibliographical notes.
3.1.1.1.2. Subject notes. Items of information that may be used in the presentation of the data.
3.1.1.1.3. Method notes. Ideas which come to the researcher in the course of reading the material, such as new hypotheses, new places to seek out additional material, critical comments about reports under consideration, and general reactions to the document.
3.1.1.2. Media.
3.1.1.2.1. Record notes on cards (or a database that serves the purpose of cards).
3.1.2. Data.
3.1.2.1. Types of data.
3.1.2.1.1. Consciously transmitted information.
3.1.2.1.2. Relics.
3.1.2.1.3. Memorials.
3.1.2.2. Sources of data.
3.1.2.2.1. Primary sources. Materials by eyewitnesses.
3.1.2.2.2. Secondary sources. Hearsay materials.
3.2. Criticism of data.
3.2.1. Veracity of sources.
3.2.1.1. External aka Lower Criticism. Is the document under consideration a genuine one?
3.2.1.2. Internal aka Higher Criticism. Is the information contained in the document trustworthy (i.e., accurate, consistent, etc)?
3.2.1.2.1. Positive internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document was accurate, competent and acting in good faith (although keeping in mind that he may be speaking figuratively), and seek literal meaning of the statements of the document.
3.2.1.2.2. Negative internal criticism. Researcher momentarily assumes that the author of the document is fallible, foolish or faking and seeks evidence that this is not so.
3.2.1.3. Interrelation of lower and higher criticism.
3.2.1.3.1. The trustworthiness of the document may help determine whether it is genuine.
3.2.1.3.2. To the degree that a document can be determined to be genuine may help determine whether the information in it is trustworthy.
3.3. Presentation of data.
4.
Advantages and limitations.
4.1. Advantages
4.1.1. Some problems cannot be solved in any other way, as the circumstances cannot be repeated.
4.1.2. Some problems cannot be feasibly duplicated, or duplicated in a desirable manner.
4.1.3. Can help alleviate emotionally charged situations by identifying the situations that led up to it and providing a new perspective of the present situation.
4.2. Disadvantages.
4.2.1. Lack of rigorous control in matching past situations with present ones. Only gross effects can be detected, and seldom can the cause of these effects be directly attributed to particular variables in a specific way.
4.2.2. Tendency to generalize results far beyond the justified limits.
4.2.3. No guidelines to tell a researcher how much information to gather and analyze before a conclusion can be reached. Hence, researchers may stop before finding the correct solution, or chance never finding it.
4.2.3.1. Sample size cannot be effectively estimated as in other fields.
4.2.3.2. No effective way to calculate likelihood of making various kinds of decision errors.
A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee, abridged by D. C. Somervell, New York:Oxford U.P., 1947, pp. 43-47
I. There are three different methods of viewing and presenting the objects of our thought, and among them, the phenomena of human life. All of these, in essentials, is to be found in the works of Aristotle.
A. The first is the ascertainment and recording of 'facts.'
1. It is generally assumed that the ascertainment and recording of facts is the technique of history.
a) The phenomena in the province of this technique are the social phenomena of civilizations.
B. The second is the elucidation, through a comparative study of the facts ascertained, of general 'laws.'
1. The elucidation and formulation of general laws is the technique of science.
2. In the study of human life the science is anthropology.
a) The phenomena in the province of the scientific technique, as it relates to the study of human life, i.e., the science of anthropology, are the social phenomena of primitive societies.
3. All sciences pass through a stage in which the ascertainment and recording of facts is the only activity open to them.
C. The third is the artistic re-creation of the facts in the form of 'fiction.'
1. Fiction is the technique of the drama and the novel.
a) The phenomena in the province of this technique are the personal relations of human beings.
2. The drama and the novel do not present fictions, complete fictions and nothing but fictions about personal relationships.
