The Eagle & the Snake

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby kbs2244 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 1:38 pm

The Mormon argument has been well examined, and set aside.
They may have been there, but they didn't do much but pass through.

Nobody wants to admit it is there.
kbs2244
 
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47 pm

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Minimalist » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:44 pm

Set aside by who? Mormons?

That proves a lot!
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15435
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby shawomet » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:08 pm

As far as Barry Fell, being involved with the New England Antiquities Research Association at the time Fell's first book , America, B.C. was released, there was obviously a great deal of interest in his epigraph research. But, for myself I just felt Fell's book was organized like he wrote it in about 2 hours and sent it to the publisher, who then published as is. What a superficial mess!! To me it was proof that even a Harvard professor can be a scatterbrain at times. Yes, he was also an epigrapher. However, it is probably worth pointing out he was an epigrapher unable to distinguish between ogham and glacial scratches. He was an epigrapher unable to distinguish ogham from Native American sharpening grooves on stone.
He was an epigrapher who just threw illustrations of tablets into his book without any research regarding them whatsoever. Just look at this, must be from the Mediterranean. Thankfully, at least where our New England sites were concerned, the work of Mavor and Dix(Maintou: The Sacred Landscape of New England's Native Civilization(1989))finally took people's minds away from speculating that every ancient Mediterranean civilization from the Egyptians on down, as well as Iberian Celts, were cavorting all over the New England countryside. And instead focused attention on those Native cultures that we know were here, and the dawning understanding that they did build structures in stone, something that was simply not associated with Northeastern tribes. Fell's mind was just too undisciplined, IMHO. Terrible writer, as disorganized a writer/thinker as is imaginable. I thought he gave the study of Pre Columbus voyages to the New World a bad name! He may have been a member of the Epigraphic Society and fluent in SOME Old World scripts, but a writer who writes clearly organized works, well, that he was not. Maybe when he delved into epigraphy he didn't feel the need to appear to be a rigorous scholar any longer, I'm not sure. And when he can't distinguish natural lines from ogham, well, I'm not sure just how competent an epigrapher he actually was. Methinks he would have done well to stick with oceanography.
shawomet
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:55 am

<sigh>

The value of the work of any pioneer or synthesist is in the data he presents and the patterns he finds in it. Eliade, Fell, Campbell or anybody else. People like them give those who follow a place to start, and an outline idea of the lay of the landscape.

Mendel fudged his statistics. Big freaking deal. he saw the pattern, where the pattern was tending, and skipped to it, confident that the discrepancies were noise in the signal. He was right.

If he didn't do it "our way," and most of the criticism leveled at him centers around that, then the critics are throwing babies out with bathwater. Really -- should the deliveryman's shortcomings be taken to outweigh the value of what's in the package ?

IMO.
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:28 am

uniface wrote:
The value of the work of any pioneer or synthesist is in the data he presents and the patterns he finds in it. Eliade, Fell, Campbell or anybody else.

Mendel fudged his statistics.


Mendel was a scientist , his data was falsifiable , it has withstood empirical testing and there is a good case that he didn't fudge his statistics .
He does not belong to the same category of writer as Fell (the epigrapher ), Campbell , Eliade who have written speculatively , often unfalsifiably and when put to the empirical test have been found wanting and are also guilty of ignoring data contrary to their "syntheses " .

George
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:15 am

Doctrinarian scienceism is beyond tedious as a procrustian bed into which every idea/insight (as it imagines) must either fit or be rejected.

"Falsify" the Declaration of Independence. :lol:

"Falsify" the last letter or e-mail you sent to someone to see whether what you said in it withstands rigorous scrutiny.

Procedures are tools. Not masters.
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:45 am

You attempted to categorise Mendel with pattern seekers like Eliade ,Fell and Campbell . What distinguisehes them is that Mendel will be remembered for what he brought to science . A century and a half later despite various paradigm shifts his falsifiable work has stood the test of time . Fifty years on in the case of Eliade his work that can be falsified has been shown to be wanting similarly for Fell and Campbell . Even the non falsifiable aspects are highly questionable ,particularly in the case of Eliade .
A more appropriate comparison with them would be Alan Ginsberg , Miley Cyrus and Stephen Spielberg , not a scientist . They belong to an entirely different form of enquiry/entertainment .
You can't falsifiy the Declaration of Independence a Beethoven sonata or an episiode of the Simpsons and we don't categorise them with the efforts of those whose work is falsifiable .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:12 am

Doctrinarian scienceism is beyond tedious


:D
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:42 am

Highlighting errors including category errors is not scientism .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:04 pm

I'm not arguing that you're wrong.

But getting so obsessive and bogged down over procedural objections that the bigger picture's lost is wrong. IMHO, It's an attempt to impose myopia.

Every great scientific breakthrough -- go back and check -- has come to someone in a flash of insight while his attention was idling. Conceptual breakthrough situations are proverbially, "Bed, Bath & Bus ride." The hard part is then writing them up for publication in such a way as to make them seem like they were arrived-at by linear, logical thinking -- the same check-your-math bean counting procedure you insist on setting up as the arbiter of everything.

A place for everything and everything in its place :wink:
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:02 pm

"A place for everything and everything in its place "

It is not being obsessive or scientistic to point out that Mendel got it right and made a great contribution to science .

Eliade and Fell the epigrapher got it wrong and have made no contribution to science .

Mendel should not be considered in the same category .i.e. his place is quite different from theirs .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:35 pm

From your perspective, you're right.

Once again, I'm not arguing with you. If you follow your line of thought, basing your procedure on the assumptions you're accepting, you come to your conclusion.

Your assumption is that the only legitimate approach to comprehending a big picture is by dissecting it into the greatest possible number of components, and then testing to see whether they can be re-combined using logic. It's what academics DO.

Their dogmas vary depending on the century and the topic, but the human inability to stop operating on the basis of belief (while pretending it isn't) doesn't. So in the final analysis, it's pretty much theology in drag, with "the scientific method" in place of the Summa Theologica. Complete with ordination (PhD), investitures (tenured positions), little popes whose pronouncements (while they live) are unquestionable, the college of cardinals ("scholarly consensus") meeting in conclaves (annual conventions), the requirement that every publication be vetted with a nihil obstat and imprimatur (peer review), inquisitions, heresy trials and the rest of it.

IMO, while "the scientific method" approach to areas wildly inapplicable to it like anthropology (because, for starters, none of the phenomena it deals with meet even the basic requirement of replicability) is productive of an endless number of dissertation and thesis topics for years to come, and conduces to striking the pose of fashionable, academically elite rigor, in the end, it's just monkeys turning the cranks of intellectual sausage grinders -- previous publications in one end, preordained conclusions out the other end. Once you know the operating assumptions, you know their conclusions in advance.

The whole "scholarly" spectacle's just tedious, Tiompan. "Scientific rigor" saddled us with Clovis First for 50 years in the face of clear evidence to the contrary (none of which survived the unrealistic demands made on it). Until last year, the rearguard was still trying to suffocate "the Clovis Comet" under a blanket of "rigorous" procedural and interpretive nitpickings, and that same mentality, until the recent Santa Fe Conference, was still sniggering "Show me the boats," imagining that they were pronouncing the soundest judgement on the Solutrian hypothesis currently possible, ex cathedra.

Try reading through this :
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/ ... ucture.htm
for an example of someone comprehending a complex picture directly. There are not many like him left, because the goal of what calls itself "education" is the production of myopic technicians, with no unified vision of the field as a whole (and what it involves) other than as the sum of current dogmatics -- let alone of it as having some insight into human nature.

My this stuff makes my brain tired.
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:25 am

It is not only from my perspective that I am right .
Mendel got it right , that is not an assumption .
When writing about shamanism Eliade got it wrong ,that is not an assumption , he also , in the manner of synthesists , made sweeping claims that cannot be possibly shown to right or wrong but as they were based on his wrong assumptions his logic can be shown to faulty in the extreme . Campbell made sweeping claims for the monomyth and like Eliade ignored clear contrary evidence . These are not assumptions .
These were the players lumped together by you which I pointed out was a category error . That is not enough for you to make any assumption about how I might consider the “big picture “ .
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby uniface » Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:01 am

For the last time : I am not saying that you are "wrong". That you keep insisting that you are "right" shows me that you haven't comprehended what I am saying.

I am pointing out that, given the set of assumptions you are making, once you formulate the procedural rules you will follow, the conclusion that you will reach can be predicted in advance without having to wade through however many pages of your "doing the math" the exercise involves.

Assumptions and procedures foreordain conclusions.

Your focal point is within the set of constraints and parameters you are using. Mine is from outside that box. That we "see" a different picture should come as no surprise.

If you keep on doing the same thing the same way, you will keep on coming the same conclusion -- the only one you can arrive at by going about it the way you're doing it. If that satisfies you, fine. You join the millions of people who are, within the parameters of their assumptions (ontological and procedural), "right."

The problem with this is that there are thousands of that sort of "right answers" out there, and no two of them agree.
uniface
 

Re: The Eagle & the Snake

Postby Tiompan » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:30 am

You are in no position to make assumptions about my assumptions simply because I pointed out where Eliade got it wrong .
" If you keep on doing the same thing the same way," i.e. accepting what is patently wrong , " you will keep on coming the same conclusion and join the millions of people who are, within the parameters of their assumptions (ontological and procedural) ", "wrong."
Tiompan
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am

PreviousNext

Return to New World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron