Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 10/22/07, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Yigal:
>
> On 10/21/07, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> > One of the basic premises of any science, including the study of history 
> > and
> > of linguistics, is that the laws of nature, and the rules that govern 
> > human
> > behavior, were always what as the are now.
>
> The basic tenet of modern science is that it is based on observation.
> Furthermore, for that observation to be scientifically valid, it has
> to be repeatable. Then patterns are sought in collections of
> observations, those patterns are tested by making more observations,
> which scientists call making hypotheses, testing them and refining
> them to theories. (Source: Simpson, George Gaylord and William S Beck
> "Life: an introduction to Biology" 1965 as well as many other science
> textbooks of that era.) In modern science, observation takes
> precedence over theory.

> Because modern science is limited to what can be observed, either
> directly or indirectly, it cannot study what cannot be observed. One
> example of such is the past, which, though once observable, no long
> is.

It is problematic to take a quote from a biology book as to what science is.
Biology and other natural sciences are different than history and literature.
This does not mean that history is not a science or that there are no
scientific ways to study literature, including ancient literature.  Your
representation of postmodern vs. modern philosophies does not appear to
be what scientists generally use to qualify postmodern and modern
philosophies.  Furthermore, since you have that book, what does that book
say about ancient life, such as dinosaurs?  Does it suggest ancient life
cannot be studied?

Yitzhak Sapir