<HTML>Joanne wrote:
>
>
> IMO, this assumes the humans doing the study of history are
> capable of pure objectivity, which is unheard of in
> humans..(the operative word is "pure").
>
Although unattainable in any field, (perspective is a problem with any observation) it should still be the goal.
> History itself is not a science... but
> > the <i>study</i> of it should be.
>
> Agreed.
If we agree on this, as you have stated, then we agree on the absolute heart of the matter. Everything else is just window dressing.
>
> It's the same thing with
> > any other field. Chemistry (the noun) is not a science; the
> > study of chemical reactions and properties, however, is.
> > Same thing here.
>
> Wrong. Chemistry <I>is</I> a science.
No, Joanne. Mixing baking soda with vinegar and watching it fizz is chemistry in action. Studying the reaction and finding out how it is occuring is science.
>
> This is too simplistic. Methodology is not static. New
> methodology can supercede old methodology. Dogmatic rules
> and catechism, such as you propose here, are a contradiction
> to reasoning and critical thinking.
I'm not talking about "research methods", I'm talking about the actual function of creating the logical argument that leads to the/a logical conclusion. I have yet to see a new methodology created to supercede logic and logical argumentation.
>
> > But the study of history must be done scientifically, or it
> > has little value, except as historical fiction. Stray from
> > the evidence, foul your methodology, and your conclusions are
> > virtually worthless. If you try to "attack" pseudohistory
> > with real history, you end up actually legitimizing the
> > pseudohistory by placing it on equal footing.
>
> No, you can educate observers who have no truth to balance
> against the pseudo.
I've seen people provided with plenty of "data" (facts) that are quite persuasive, yet they have been duped by a flawed methodology into thinking the pseudo-argument is "better", and they adhere to the erroneous conclusion. Take "Intelligent Design", for example. Horrendously flawed methodology, lots of contrary data, millions of adherents. Oh well.
>
> > You must
> > attack the methodology employed, and show it as the
> > fraud/hoax/misrepresentation it really is.
>
> This view of yours leaves no room for honest mistakes,
> personal delusion, or even professional disagreements over
> interpretation of data.
That would be the "misrepresentation" portion. It may not be intentional misrepresentation, but it is still a misrepresentation. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that position.
That's not good science. You begin
> here by assuming some "evil" people are out to hoax others
> and must be "exposed" -- that sounds like zealotry and
> religiousity, not science or good scholarship.
I am not the topic of discussion here. Historical research is.
Good science
> is always about the alternate hypothesis. It should consider
> all possible interpretations of data. It asks the question,
> "How else can this be understood?" It rejects that which
> cannot be demonstrated or which can be demonstrated to fail.
> It doesn't run from new ideas and from what it does not
> understand. It investigates fairly -- so no prejudgements,
> ideally.
Againk, we agree.
>
> Finally, the burden of proof is on whoever introduces a new
> theory. If he/she does not prove it, why is so much energy
> wasted on attempted to "debunk" the new (failed) theory?
Because the proponent is often <i>still</i> pushing their failed theories as if they were completely valid. Davidovits is still out there claiming Khufu's pyramid is made of geopolymers. So long as people keep pushing, an equal and opposite force must be raised to re-educate new people about the flaw in the argument.
People are still touting Piazzi-Smith and Cayce as if they got it exactly right. People still claim the Gizamids are at the geographic centerpoint of the earth. The list goes on, and you know it certainly as well as I do. Hey.. people still thing Neugebauer is right...
This
> is what I asked Garrett in the other thread. Why try to
> "prove a negative" when it's so difficult? Why not offer the
> public a good education and teach people how to think -- not
> what to think, instead?
And there you have it! By teaching <i>good methodology</i>... by offering highly visible criticism of <i>bad methodology</i>... we <i>are</i> educating the public on "how to think", and not on "what to think".
Again, we are in complete agreement.
Thank you, Joanne.
If some pseudoscholars want to keep
> trying to prove their claims, so what?
>
They are welcome to keep trying to "prove" their claims. The problem comes when they state that their claim is proven, yet still unaccepted by "closed-minded" professional historians/archaeologists/egyptologists, and then foster animosity against the professionals. It's akin to someone promoting an agenda of killing all the doctors, and replacing them with evangelical faith healers. How long should that message go unchallenged? How many "followers" should they be allowed to actively and vociferously recruit before the doctors stand up and defend themselves?
Same thing. Different field of study.
Take care, Joanne.
Anthony</HTML>
