I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statement. And that, for me, is quite a stretch, given that I feel you are moving the goalposts in a very significant fashion with the modifier of "incorrectly attributed to the supernatural". To quite a seemingly intellectually and rationally dishonest degree.
I get the sense you are building your argumentative trenches behind your restatement of "correct attribution", which involves way too much application of modern knowledge (and forgiveness) to past errors.
I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.
Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here.
There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions.
I'm making no strong claims here. I'm merely referencing the historical record. A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare. Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc).
> I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction.
The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.
> It is quite curious to me that making a statement about the available historical record is interpreted as making "a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration."
I can't imagine that you think you gave explanation, evidence or elaboration. You object to my characterization of it as "a relatively strong statement"? I can weaken that language, but you made a specific claim and I was interested in it.
> Do you make the same charge when someone says the ideas of Isaac Newton predated those of Albert Einstein?
That is a question that is answered far more directly and far more easily, to the point that adding evidence to the conversation is not terribly interesting. So, no.
> Given that you're suggesting a scenario that is far more difficult to prove than what the historical record shows us, I think the burden of citing examples is more squarely on your side here.
The only claim I made was that I did not find something obvious, coupled with a request for more information. Your labeling something "my side" is confusing - my example was in pursuit of clarification you'd asked for, not something I am claiming happened.
> There is ample historical evidence available that documents the establishment and spread of religiously motivated moral aversion to many things. Within the context of the available historical record, it can further be established when these ideas were created in relation to the history of other ideas that either supported, refuted, or otherwise informed pre-existing moral aversions.
This is closer to the kind of elaboration I was looking for, though not at all specific.
> A religiously motivated moral and social aversion that demanded women on their periods keep themselves sequestered away from others predated the works of Shakespeare.
Much earlier - it's present in Leviticus and presumably predates that. I don't see that it's necessarily related, though.
> Moral aversion regarding sexuality (documented in religious texts from centuries BCE) predated recognition and discovery of STIs (which started as early as the 15th century, iirc).
Your timeline on "aversion to sexuality" is what I've had in mind from the start.
Regarding STIs, actual germ theory came hundreds of years after that. But this is talking past my question. It is certainly the case that no one said, "Hmm, there is an affliction spreading between people by way of sexual contact - let's tell people God will punish them if they fool around." That's Einstein vs Newton thing (or Einstein vs Ptolemy). That you think it relevant evidence confuses me. "The people who did X are the ones who got sick" is not predicated on any sophisticated understanding - it's the kind of thing that keeps people away from poison berries.
> The historical evidence is there! Go look at it.
You basically said the evidence wasn't there, above. I read your original statement as implying you had some in mind. It's clear that you don't.
I did not at any point say the evidence for my statement wasn't there. How do you interpret anything I've said as saying evidence wasn't there? I have now more than once said exactly the opposite, pointing you toward the historical record of human history. If you're interested, you can investigate it on your own. Look at religious texts. Look at ancient/classical texts. Look at antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look then to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the ever-expanding records since.
There is little to no historical evidence for your claim that recognizing STI danger predates establishing moral aversion to certain kinds of sexual practices, especially prostitution (the actual topic). You're offering a hypothetical and conceivable scenario, positing a great deal of modern sensibility onto pre-modern humanity, as if that has any explanatory and provable power against documented human history. We aren't going to get anywhere if your idea of seeking understanding is to suggest that some scenarios A, B, or C could have plausibly and conceivably happened, provide no evidence that this has ever been the case, and then ask for evidence that history did not happen that way. How is it that you think that is at all sensible?
Seriously, go read the texts available that investigate and document the history of human sexuality if you don't want to just look at primary sources. There is so much material out there. A Google search will get you going.
Moreover, I'm not at all talking past your question. I think you're expanding your question far beyond my original statement and may have your own idea of what it means to answer your question. Documented history of moral aversion to sexual practices predates any documented recognition and understanding of risk of danger, disease, and so on. This is my entire point. The evidence is in the historical records, which you can investigate to your own satisfaction. Documented history of many moral aversions often shows little rationale beyond establishing difference and power. My followup was simply explaining that, within the context of understanding the historical record, there isn't even a question that this is so. You are perhaps coming from outside that context. Fine. It's simply not my concern to provide a survey of the history of human sexuality, though you can tackle that topic on your own if you're that interested.
My comment about Levitical law concerning women's periods predating Shakespeare wasn't offered as a piece of evidence related to this, but as an example of a statement based on historical record that is beyond doubt, just like the Newton-Einstein example. How is that not obvious from the context of my statement? I say specifically that I'm merely making statements in reference to the records of history. Levitical law predating Shakespeare is a matter of the historical record. As is the establishment of moral aversion to sexual practices predating germ theory and understanding the danger and risk of certain sexual behaviors. I mean, from my perspective, you're making my point for me. And yet, you're saying it's somehow not relevant.
Look at the moral aversion regarding eating pork for some religions. It is completely conceivable that they saw people getting terrible wasting diseases from parasites from people who ate pork and came to their own conclusions that they were 'dirty animals'. Local authorities banned pork consumption. A few generations later it became necessary to describe why people shouldn't eat these animals and what made them different. There were no longer any examples of human disease people could point to so it simply became 'because God said so'.
Who knows if this is how it actually happened but we do know early societies attributed to the divine all sorts of stuff that seems silly in terms of attribution but wise in terms of action today...I recall a story of one village in SE Asia surviving a devastating tsunami because of old religious lore about what to do if the ocean receded.
Because available historical records are quite informative.
> Who knows if this is how it actually happened...
Given the available historical record, we do. Sure, we cannot identify every possible reason behind every religious prescription, but we can at least identify the point in history that certain moral aversions were drafted, and the reasons given for them by those who created them.
> It is completely conceivable that...
That some creative scenario is conceivable has nothing to do with its place in history or its likelihood of being true.
Just because some religious notion happened to centuries later be found to have a grain of sensibility doesn't in any way counter that, historically speaking, the known moral aversion predated any known danger. Many religious prescriptions are part of carving out an identity and social rules for its adherents. Hence casting them in a moral dimension, to add the weight of divine approval/disapproval to the weight of the religious source of obligation. They established and perpetuated power structures in human relationships.
Pointers to said records? I wasn't aware there was a historical play-by-play regarding how the dogma of today's dominant religions came to be.
2. Grab the source material of said religion's scriptures and other authoritative texts.
3. Jot down the approximated date of said authoritative text's believed/identified authorship.
4. Interrogate the scriptures and authoritative texts for presented rationales. Admit these to be the primary offered reasoning, and the highest source of obligational determination for adherents. Where possible, include comparative and secondary sources that identify and illuminate social, cultural, political, intellectual, scientific, and philosophical understanding and reasoning of the period that may also be additional sources of obligational determinative weight.
5. Compare to known timeline of understanding physical risks of prostitution and other sexual behaviors.
6. Place everything on a timeline and see which came first. Trace the development of human ideas, beliefs, and knowledge through time.
I'm not making any radical suggestions here. This is just basic intellectual and cultural history.
Further that there is a 'known timeline of the understanding of risks' -- IOW when, exactly, did humanity start to recognize some idea of cause and effect when it comes to disease.
You have to recognize that this is all impossible and it is perfectly legitimate to say 'I don't know how this happened but here is a plausible scenario'.
To say 'oh yes, this knowledge is out there and perfectly knowable' is quite radical.
I have in no way made such a claim.
There is a known timeline of human understanding of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc. That knowledge is out there, and the timeline we can build with available records is perfectly knowable, insofar as humans are capable of perfectly knowing anything based on available evidence.
That you seem intent on persisting in arguing the plausibility of undocumented and truly unknowable alternative scenarios makes for very boring discussion. Let's just say aliens did it. We cannot possibly prove otherwise.
For some reason you assume people are implausibly stupid, and not just in this thread but as a general approach. It does make for very boring discussions where I have to explain things like this: I know when germs, bacteria, viruses etc were understood...I also know that the macro evidence of diseases were observed and understood at some level much, much earlier.
I made it clear from the outset that I was discussing the merely plausible, but you decided to trudge down that path anyway...I'm not sure why you are trying to saddle me with that decision that you made nor how your boredom is my responsibility.
Please feel free to ignore any comments of mine that you find boring in the future and keep out of that portion of the thread...I will be sure to do the same in regards to you.
Suffice to say, while this is a valid effect, it is not the actual reason the public has such a moral aversion to legalized prostitution.