Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Yohanan,

Your definition of science is fine, and the same is true with  your 
presentation of the scientific method (the Hypothetic deductive 
method). But what does science mean in practical work, and what are 
the value of the conclusions drawn? In other words, how shall we look 
at the results of scientific research?

PROOFS

In the philosophical sense of the word, only things that can be seen 
or directly detected by one of our senses can be proven. Thus, a 
creator (god) cannot be proven, and most (yes, I say "most") of what 
normally are viewed as " scientific facts" or "proven by science" 
both inside that natural sciences and the humanistic sciences, are 
not *proven* in the philosophical sense of the word. This should lead 
us to have a humble and not a dogmatic view of science.

EVIDENCE

A good example of a non-philosophical use of "proof" is the court 
case. In a case there may be no confession, no witnesses, and no hard 
data showing explicitly that the accused one is guilty. But on the 
basis of indirect evidence the verdict of the court may be: "The 
court finds it proven that NN is guilty..." We all know that many 
such verdicts are wrong.

PARADIGMS AND AXIOMS

As for ancient history and ancient chronology, philosophical proofs 
are excluded. But how shall we look at the evidence in the form of 
ancient artifacts and ancient writings? This evidence must be 
interpreted, and what is this interpretation based upon? It is based 
upon axioms and the current paradigm. What does that mean? In 
biology, historical geology, and other sciences the paradigm (model) 
on the basis of which data are interpreted, is organic evolution. 
Paradigms such as evolution are per definition unproven and 
unprovable, yet they to a great extent color the interpretations of 
the data. The same is true with different axioms (unproven 
assumptions) that are used as tools for interpretations. In many 
cases the paradigm and the axioms play a greater role as a basis for 
the conclusions than the data themselves.  I am not saying that the 
methodology used in biology and historical geology is wrong, or that 
it is wrong to use paradigms and axioms. What I am saying is that we 
should always be aware what we are doing and what our foundations are 
- we are not dealing with facts -, and we should never be dogmatic.

In studies of the Hebrew Bible, one paradigm is the "Deuteronomistic 
historical work," suggested by M. Noth in 1943. Noth's view was that 
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings originally were a 
literal entity, written a few decades after the destruction of 
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II. In Noth's view, the language, 
chronology, and ideology of the books indicated that the same person 
was the author. Noth presented this as a hypothesis, and it is of 
course pure speculation. But in many teaching institutions today, The 
Deueronomistic historical work is viewed as fact and has become a 
paradigm. Exactly the same is true with the Documentary hypothesis 
(regarding the J, and E. and P sources). This is again pure 
speculation, yet it is often treated as fact. I am not saying that 
that teachers should abandon the use of the traditional paradigms and 
axioms, but rather that they should teach the students the real 
nature or what they are working with (or better, show the students 
how they can find this out by themselves).

As for the Neo-Babylonian and Persien chronology, the paradigm for 
several hundred years has been that the chronology of Claudius 
Ptolemy is correct (I have a book from 1814 showing this). When 
cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of particular kings  started to 
be discovered i the middle of the 19th century, these were 
interpreted in the light of the work of Ptolemy. Thus, we got the 
circular situation that the tablets were interpreted in the light of 
the chronology of Ptolemy and the chronology of Ptolemy was confirmed 
by the same tablets. This circular situation still holds. I am not 
saying that we should abandon the traditional chronology, but that we 
should keep in mind that this chronology is not proven, it builds on 
paradigms and axioms, and that there may be weaknesses with it.

OUR HORIZON OF UNDERSTANDING

In addition to the great role played by paradigms and axioms, all of 
us have a horizon of understanding, which includes our preferences 
and prejudices, our motives, and moral, religious, and political 
views. When a scientist works with his or her data, his/her horizon 
of understanding is at work as well, and it often colors the 
conclusions drawn. We cannot avoid this subjectivity, but we should 
always keep in mind that it is at work and try as much as possible to 
avoid biased conclusions.

DOGMATISM

A basic attribute of a good student and a good scientist is a 
critical mind. The very essence of science is skepticism and 
criticism, and that is the opposite of dogmatism. The Hypothetic 
deductive method that Yohanan described above, cannot prove anything, 
It can only falsify and not confirm; at most it can show what is 
likely (Cf. Karl Popper "The Logic of Scientific Discovery").  I am 
not so much concerned with how science is defined, but I am very much 
concerned with how the results of scientific research are viewed. 
Claims such as "this is scientifically proven", and "this is 
impossible", and "this is true because all authorities believe so" 
betray a mind that has not really grasped what science  is and what 
science can and cannot do. So a humble mind is much better that a 
dogmatic one.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






> Hello Karl and Bill;
>
> In every text book that own, from Anthropological, to Psychological, to
> Biological, defines science as "....systematic knowledge of he physical or
> material world that is gained through observation and experimentation.....".
>
>
> The Scientifc Method is even as follows:
>
> 1) Establish a question.
> 2) Gathr information and resources.
> 3) Form a hypothesis.
> 4) Test hypothesis from experiment and collect data.
> 5) Analyze the data.
> 6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a startin point for a
> new hypothesis.
>
> Yo*h*anan bin-Dawidh
> The Unirsity of Texas at Arlington
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew