Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Yitzhak Sapir<yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
You misquote me again, taking words out of context. Native speakers of
English should not be confused.

> 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

What we find is that when people start quoting recent advances only,
we lose sight of the original basis upon which those assumptions were
made.

An example in physics is quantum mechanics, which was based on
Einstein’s relativity theory. Everyone assumes that relativity theory
is correct because of the results of the eclipse experiment of 1913,
therefore quantum mechanics is also correct. But after Dr. Thomas
Barnes retired from UTEP in 1981, he decided on revisiting that
original experiment. While going through the calculations, he noticed
that a constant used by both sides was wrong, but the correct figure
was not discovered until long after the experiment was made, He
applied the corrected constant: on the Newtonian side it had little
effect, except making the Newtonian results closer to the measured
results. But on the Einsteinian side, the application of the corrected
constant was far more significant and deleterious, with the result
that relativity theory would never have been accepted had the
corrected constant been used. Dr. Barnes later was involved in Common
Sense Science http://www.commonsensescience.org/ So if the foundation
of relativity theory is rejected, what does it do to the whole edifice
of quantum mechanics built on that rejected foundation?

Similarly, both supporters and detractors of the Documentary
Hypothesis seldom go earlier than Wellhausen: but it is writings that
precede 1820 that show the theory’s ideological basis, and once that
ideological basis is rejected, then Wellhausen’s contributions as well
as all following writings follow into the rejection heap.

And in discussing “secular history” of Egypt, one cannot do it without
involving Manetho. If one quotes only Kitchen and later, one may not
notice that ultimately all of that history is but revisions of Manetho
because Manetho is hardly mentioned, if at all. If Manetho is
rejected, then a very different picture emerges when based only on
archaeological findings and deciphering found writings. And if Manetho
is rejected, then Kitchen’s and his followers’ contributions need also
be rejected, and the whole history reconstructed.

>   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
>
You have just given a good reason for booting Jim Stinehart off this
list, as his whole argument is based on the correctness of mainstream
modern interpretations of Egyptian history, which are based on an
assumption that Manetho was basically correct except for some details.
If Manetho and Egyptian history are deemed off topic for this list,
then all theories based on that Manetho and Egyptian history are also
off topic for this list, and that includes Jim Stinehart’s theories.

Karl W. Randolph.