Salve Favoni

Although you posted to another group, I think it best we continue this discussion here.

Scripsisti:
Seeing as how the current administration supports Isreal totally, and seeing as how the current administration was planning an oil soaked Iraq war before even 9/11, I don't think 'fallacious methodology' had ANYTHING to do with it.

Something more we agree on! I mentioned 'fallacious methodoly' in regard to the intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, which is different from the justification the administration tried to sell of linking Al Qaeda to Iraq.

Scripsisti etiam:
Surprising you should even mention this, when you yourself use these sources to back up your arguments as if they were compendiums of fact.

Not at all. We agree that Livy's is a mythological history of Early Rome. The fact is that sources like Livy provides us with a record of what Romans believed to be true. He is not the only one to express certain views, as Cicero, Ovid, and others also offer us the Roman view of their tradition. They worked from earlier sources, but no more than perhaps late third century sources. Beyond that we are no longer in the realm of history but of archaeology. It is dangerous to base interpretation of archaeological discoveries on a source like Livy. It is fallacious methodology to project back in time what were later developments, or to assume a later development had evolved from things we know nothing about. There are limits to what archaeology can provide from the material evidence it uncovers. It is fallacious methodology to assume something first and then fit your evidence to support that assumption. Therein lies the danger of interpreting archaeological discoveries according to what Livy says. However you cannot justifiably dismiss entirely what Livy said and then substitute some other myth on which to base an interpretation. You have to build a theory from known facts, from the material evidence that is gathered. That is known as the scientific method. Such theories are always subject to change as new discoveries are made. And one must recognize that some things simply cannot be learned from the kinds of evidence we are provided from material remains or texts.

Now, Favoni, you wish to hold on to a theory that was composed in the past with very limited material evidence, in spite of the fact that new discoveries have since been made. Also this theory you wish to dispute with me was composed through fallacious methodology. Present your case and I will point out the errors in its reasoning. Further, the theory you wish to support counters what is the Roman tradition. So I consider that the burden of proof lies with those who proposed the theory that wishes to overturn what Roman tradition held as true. We can agree that what Livy said about Early Rome is probably not factual in detail. But what do you offer in its place, based on what evidence and constructed through what form of reasoning?