Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 22/09/2005 16:34, Karl Randolph wrote:

> Peter:
>
> It is a common belief that all knowledge has to be 
> scientific knowledge. ...
> Though history is not science, it is no less valid 
> knowledge than science.
>  

Agreed, certainly on Simpson et al's rather restricted definition of 
science. For that matter, nor is much that is generally recognised as 
physical science, such as observational astronomy. And while linguistics 
of modern languages just might count as science, historical linguistics 
does not.

So stop complaining that what I and others put forward on this forum is 
not science. This is not a forum for discussion of science, but of a 
historical language and related historical ideas. Judge what is posted 
here not as science but as history and so as "no less valid knowledge 
than science".

> ...
>
> 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.
>  

In that case, Karl, pity yourself, for it is you who has been 
persistently refusing even to study historical comparative lingustics 
because it is not science, by Simpson's narrow definition. Don't expect 
it to be science, but allow it to be "no less valid knowledge than 
science". Study it as history, and you will find that it gives a much 
better attested history than almost anything which can be reconstructed 
from archaeology.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005