Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)
If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.
Condorman: ...I'm interested in the design conclusion for #10. Hexagonal cells are simply a very efficient use of space.
When I get a chance I will try to respond to this.
Cordially,
Seriously, just take a day off - no hospital, no FR, no work - so you can recharge a bit. Given that I still have no convictions for practicing medicine without a license, and only three arrests, I'd say that I can still claim this to be sound medical advice ;)
We're in no hurry here. Real life takes priority. Hope it works out.
Hi Diamond! Sorry to be so late to the party. Yes, I think both approaches are legitimate, for the human mind just naturally works in both modes.
However, I do have higher confidence in the findings of the nomological/inductive sciences; for at the end of the day, they are based on direct observation and experience. I.e., their premises are "testable," directly falsifiable.
The historical sciences are necessarily more speculative. Their findings primarily depend on reasonable assumptions, not presently testable evidence -- which time has "erased."
But the "reasonable" part is a lot dicier than may at first appear. We may get into a situation where we anachronistically "backload" a whole lot of personal and cultural freight onto past events, that may or may not be germane to the actual facts of the situation we are trying to explore -- and that "freight's" actual applicability to the problem under investigation, of course, cannot be verified from the present point of observation.
Plus inevitably there are "gaps in the record" that presumably contain significant events/evidence that may well have a bearing on the actual course of events and, thus, on the validity of any conclusion we reach. But we don't know what these are. We may find out more with the passage of time; or maybe not. We can't know what we don't know. What we end up with, in historical sciences such as archeology, anthropology, etc., is "a likely story," at best.
The technical term for that sort of thing is: Myth. Not science -- at least not in the sense of the nomological/inductive/empirical/testable model of science.
I suspect that archeology's account of the construction of the Great Pyramids is a myth, and only a myth. We may not ever be able to say with certainty, from this great temporal remove, how those suckers were actually built. But the human mind needs to have something that can credibly explain such things. And that's precisely the function of "the likely story," the myth -- any myth: To "explain" the things we cannot know from direct, contemporaneous observation of entities of the physical world.
In closing I'd just like to note that, IMHO, biology and evolutionary biology are two completely different types of science -- the former is on the nomological/inductive/empirical/testable model; the latter is "historical science," by virtue of its subject matter. I think it's safe to say that any science that attempts to deal with "origins" is, in principle, an endeavor dedicated to the construction of a myth. FWIW.
What do you think?
Thanks so much for writing, Diamond.
Permit me one brief sanity diversion with an excerpt from the book, The Honey Bee, by James L. Gould and Carol Grant Gould. Though it is written from an evolutionary perspective, the authors frequently cannot help but use the language of design in attempting to describe the phenonenon. Here's one example;
"...Beeswax is a fatlike substance that is metabolically expensive to produce: a kilogram of honey plus an undetermined amount of pollen is converted into only 60 grams of wax; it takes about 7 kilograms of honey to produce the comb in an average hive.
The cells are built according to a design that minimizes the use of this expensive commodity; a kilogram of wax is sufficient to work into 80,000 cells. Less social bees generally build cells on a horizontal surface; bumble bees, for instance, most often use the floor of an abandoned underground mouse nest. The cells are basically cylindrical pots arranged in a hodge-podge manner, sometimes sharing a thick wall, sometimes not. In a honey bee colony, the cells are arranged in an efficient hexagonal grid, with every cell sharing a wall with six adjacent cells. The comb hangs down vertically from the top of the cavity, and every cell shares its base with cells opening on the other side of the two-layer structure. The cells are not quite horizontal, but rather tip up 13° from their bases; this helps keep the nectar and honey from oozing out. Moreover, the cells on the two sides are offset slightly, so that the center of a base on one side is the junction of three walls on the other, an arrangement that adds greatly to the strength of the comb. The result of this architectural scheme is that the wax can be incredibly thin: the walls are only eight-hundredths of a millimeter thick, and the base (which forms the backbone of the comb) is only two-tenths. Feather light and brittle, the comb can nevertheless support many kilograms of honey. In especially hot climates, where the comb tends to soften and lose its essential rigidity, the bees mix propolis with the wax flakes during construction to create a strong alloy." (p. 31) [emphasis mine]
Cordially,
I think you need to review the meaning of logical induction - it does not mean what you appear to think it means ;)
Dear General_Re: Logical induction is like "mother's milk" to me. Are you suggesting that I should now engage myself in a formal inquiry as to what "mother's milk" is? Should I puzzle myself over an indefinite period of time exploring the mystery of the naval?
From another point of view: The process of logical induction goes by reasoning from a particular case to a general conclusion. Can you articulate the particular case that has led you to whatever general conclusion you have? If so, what is that general conclusion? And what is its significance in terms of the problems of human existence -- personal, social, cultural, historical -- if any?
I assume you agree with me that human problems ought to be put in the forefront, in terms of the settlement of the present general social chaos....
If I'm barking up the wrong tree here, IMHO it's only for lack of guidance from you, in terms of the further articulation of our common argument, from your side. My neck is already "on the block."
FWIW. I truly appreciate your message.
You will forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical by nature, I trust.
From another point of view: The process of logical induction goes by reasoning from a particular case to a general conclusion.
But it does so probabilistically. Which is why when you say things like this:
What we end up with, in historical sciences such as archeology, anthropology, etc., is "a likely story," at best.
...as though it's some sort of critique, it makes no sense. Of course it produces "a likely story" - that's all logical induction can do. All historical sciences reason inductively, by necessity, as do non-historical sciences when necessary.
It appears that you are separating disciplines according to this label of "inductive" or "non-inductive", when you seem to be critically misunderstanding what exactly induction produces, but no such distinction exists in reality. And then you go on to say things like this:
I suspect that archeology's account of the construction of the Great Pyramids is a myth, and only a myth. We may not ever be able to say with certainty, from this great temporal remove, how those suckers were actually built.
Well, wait just a minute. How do you think those accounts of the creation of the Pyramids were developed? They were reasoned inductively, based on the available evidence, of course - if your criteria for valid science is that they reason inductively, then archaeology meets that standard easily, as does every other historical science. And your conclusion that the current accounts are possibly "myth" can only have been reached inductively - if archaeologists have no basis for claiming the correctness of their accounts, then you have no basis for suggesting that it's mere "myth". After all, if they can't know how it was done, how on earth can you claim it was a myth, in effect implying that you can separate correct accounts from incorrect accounts? How can you possibly know that? Do you have some special insight that archaeologists lack?
If we cannot separate correct from incorrect acounts, then we are probably in "myth territory."
The short answer, General, is that there is no surviving evidence the ancient Egyptians had anything like the technology that would have been required to construct the pyramids. It is doubtful that we today could pull off an engineering feat like that. It's simple common sense.
Maybe archeologists just need a little more common sense.
Cordially,
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.