Peter:
What we need to keep in mind is the influence of the logical positivists on western intellectual thought, particularly among scientists.
The logical positivists were illogical in certain, crucial areas. They were blinded by their presuppositions (which they denied they had) and thought methodology so that they could not recognize their cognitive shortcomings.
In particular, I refer to their presupposition that all knowledge is either scientific, or “nonsense” (which they defined in various ways). The problem with this presupposition is that there are different types of knowledge. The rules regarding historical evidence are different from those governing scientific evidence. Does that make a study of history “nonsense”? Even they recognized that history is not nonsense, ...
... but in their effort to assert the validity of historical studies, they went by the proposition that the present is the key to the past, i.e. the present day phenomena and processes that can be observed and repeatedly so, hence scientific, are the only ones that have acted throughout the history of the universe (not scientific). “Scientific cosmology” is an oxymoran.
While the logical positivists have largely passed from the scene, their belief that the present is the key to the past is still a factor. Historical artifacts are listed as “fake” based on this belief. Historical records are “myths”. Which is more trustworthy: modern theories concerning the past, or the actual observations of the past that were recorded in art or written documents?
Which is a more trustworthy indicator of an ancient language: modern theories about what moderns think the language should have been like, or surviving documents written in that language? Which is a better indicator of Biblical Hebrew: the postulated proto-Semitic, or the surviving documents written in Biblical Hebrew?
You wrote:
you had better conclude that it is impossible to say anything about Hebrew except what is immediately deducible from the surviving texts.
I think what is deducible from surviving texts is more accurate than that based on a theory derived from a proposition, especially a proposition that I believe is invalid.
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.