Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

People,

As you can see from the subject line, this thread has once again morphed
into a discussion of Manetho, which George has declared off-limits. We have
hashed and re-hashed the "scientific method" thing over and over again as
well. While both topics may be legitimate in themselves, all most folks ar
doing is re-stating their positions. As long as no-one has anything NEW to
add, this thread, in all its manifestations, is closed.

Yigal Levin
Co-moderator, b-hebrew

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Yitzhak Sapir
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:50 AM
To: B-Hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] MLK (LM: %DYM


Hello all,

I don't want to discuss "scientific methods," but I want to shortly
correct an impression made by Karl, and to reply to James Read.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM, K Randolph wrote:

>  From this posting, I understand
> that you refer to the classical definition of what can be known, while
> as far as I understand, Yitzhak Sapir, some others on this list and I
> understand "science" as referring to empirical science. That modern
> definition comprises only a subset of what can be known. And that
> subset cannot include the past.

While I agree with Karl, that definitions are important, I do not agree
that "that modern definition [of science] ... cannot include the past."
>From the above quote it could be inferred that I do.

James Read wrote:
> I would prefer to say that I am neither for nor against scholarship. What
I
> am for is scientific study in the purest sense of the word. A scientist
> looks at past work in past papers but not accept received wisdom
> unquestioningly. He puts everything to the test to make sure that when he
> stands on the shoulders of giants that that giant is not, in actual fact,
a
> proverbial cripple with no real foundation to support your work on.

There is nothing wrong with your approach.  But I do have a problem with
your description of it as "science."  Critical questioning of past
assumptions
is definitely welcome in science.  Uncritical questioning is not.  Science
cannot progress if it has to re-establish the basics over again.  An
astrophysicist cannot be expected to prove that the earth revolves around
the sun in each paper he publishes or discussion.  On more recent
issues, such as black holes, he might be expected to summarize the
progress of recent research.  But there's nothing wrong, in itself, with
quoting views of other scholars.  In fact, it is expected.  It is
scientifically
sound practice.  Does that mean you can't put everything to the test?
Of course not.  If you were to go and read up the views of the quoted
scholars, determine if their views are quoted in context and appropriately,
and then follow up on their sources, all the more power to you.  Maybe
you will spot a problem in the logic.   In fact, I think it is likely
that if you
were to follow up on Jim's sources, you'll find he does quote sources
out of context, ignore inconvenient statements by his sources, and/or
coerce conflicting statements to appear consistent with his position.
He does it to people on the list, so it is likely that he does it to his
sources.

But Jim is doing nothing wrong when in dealing with Egyptology he goes
to modern recent scholarship.  Should you question scholarship that
is unsoundly based on Manetho?  Yes.  But before you go accusing Jim
of doing so, and indirectly accusing the Egyptologists he quotes of doing
so, find out what the Egyptologists are really saying and if they are indeed
unsoundly based on Manetho.  After all, "Egyptology is based on the work
of a 3rd century priest" is also received wisdom that must not be accepted
without question.  It is also an allegation against many Egyptologists
working and living today, and this is all the more reason that such a
statement ought to be carefully checked rather than accepted without
question.  I think if you do put effort into it, you will see that it is not
all
black and white, and actual dependence on Manetho is minimal.

Just to make it clear: I am not recommending debating Manetho's relevance
on list.  Do your follow-up and research and questioning off-list.  On here,
whatever your conclusion regarding Egyptology, either debate based on
common assumptions, or don't debate at all.  If Jim's position is that he
accepts modern studies of Egyptology, I think you should either work with
him based on his given assumption, or state that you are at odds on such
a basic concept and that makes further discussion impossible.  There's a
limit to how much we can open up the basic assumptions to debate.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/13/09
05:53:00