[b-hebrew] Language Evolution
kwrandolph at email.com
Thu Sep 22 11:34:57 EDT 2005
It is a common belief that all knowledge has to be
scientific knowledge. However, the definition of science
given by famous scientists like Dr. G.G. Simpson and
others restricts science to only a small portion of total
knowledge, so restricted that it does not even include
mathematics (though math is indispensable to study
History is not science. It uses different methodologies to
study events that are no longer observable. The tools of
science can often study artifacts from the past to give us
insights to past events that were not mentioned by old
records, archeology being a prime example of such
studies, but that does not make history science.
Though history is not science, it is no less valid
knowledge than science.
On this forum we are archeologists, studying a dead
language using the tools of linguistics analyzing the
artifacts (written records) from the past. Often we are
stymied by the lack of information that would easily be
cleared up in modern studies by questioning native
speakers, and often we disagree on procedures, how
properly to study the writings, but the central fact remains
that we are trying to understand something that is no
longer observable (for the most part, as a group, I think
we're doing a good job).
The people I pity are those who insist that all knowledge
must be scientific knowledge, and any study that is not
scientific is nonsense. They must either give up logic or
live in such ahistorical solipsism that even a seven
second memory is long term.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> On 21/09/2005 21:52, Karl Randolph wrote:
> > Peter:
> > Your whole scenario is a modern fable. It is not scientific as it
> > is not based on observable phenomena, as James Read says. All
> > radiometric dating methods are suspect, and for the same reasons,
> > not just C14. Whether the fable is accurate or not is outside the
> > realm of this forum.
> > Karl W. Randolph.
> Karl, I pity you because you can know nothing about the past. Not
> even what happened yesterday, even if you saw it with your own
> eyes, because it is not repeatable. There was a show on TV here
> about a man with a seven second memory. I didn't watch it, but I
> can imagine what it must be like. But you are worse off because you
> can't trust your memories for even seven seconds, because what you
> saw then is not repeatable.
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew