...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Kushites: “Nilo-Saharan” speakers vs. a “language isolate” speakers
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] basicbows quote: ______________________________________________________________ You also claim to have deciphered Meroitic and the language of the Harrappans? Am I correct? Has anyone written in support of these claims? I mean, one can assert anything. Ok, I assert that Kerma was built by little green mice who lived in little cheese castles on the dark side of the moon, invented interstellar travel and created all earthly civilizations? I'll cite my own work as evidence. Can you prove me wrong? Let's use some common sense here. __________________________________________________________ The fact that editors published my articles indicates that they support my claims or they wouldn't publish them. You are right, you could claim Kerma was built by green mice who lived in little chesse castles. We could read the piece and then determine its credibility based on your evidence supporting your proposition. If you built up a body of research in the area you are writing on, there is no reason why you could not cite the research in your study--you know this is normal practice for researchers. I can prove you're wrong if the evidence does not support your claim. Hypoteses should be rejected solely on the basis of the evidence presented in support of the hypothesis. You sould not just dismiss the claim solely because you did not believe it to be true, confirmation or disconfirmation of a theory depends on the amount of research used in defense of your theory. You say "Let's use common sense here", common sense or intuition is not science. Science is hypothesis testing. The sun rose in the east this morning and set in the west today. I could claim that this has always been the case,based on what happened today, but research shows that the pattern was different at different times in history. Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavior Research, commenting on your major method of research--common sense--wrote: [b]"It rests its case for superiority on the assumption that the propositions accepted by the 'priorist' are self-evident. Note that priori propositions "agree with reason" and not necessarily with experience. The idea seems to be that people, through free communication and intercourse, can reach the truth because their natural inclinations tend toward truth. The difficulty with this position lies in the expression "agree with reason". Whose reason? Suppose two honest and well meaning individuals, using rational processes, reach different conclusions, as they often do. Which one is right?" [/b] Because common sense,depends on ones 'personal taste', beliefs, biases, values and attitudes it is not a dependable method of knowing. Science demands hypotheses testing. [b] A hypothesis can be supported in an experiment, but it should always be tested. If the evidence fails to support a hypothesis it is disconfirmed. To test a hypothesis, means you have to provide evidence of an alternative hypothesis, common sense does nothing to falsify a hypothesis. Rilly's hypothesis that Meroitic can be read by reconstructing the proto-language is a good way to show how the scientific method works. Rilly claims that Meroitic is Nilo-Saharan. He claims that this is supported by comparing the Proto-Nilo-Saharan to Meroitic, because the people living in Kush today are remnants of the Meroites. We can disconfirm this theory because it is not supported by the historical and linguistic evidence we have concerning the linguistic and political history of Kush. We must reject Rilly's theory because ,we have no evidence that 1) Proto-Nilo-Saharan, as constructed by Rilly was ever spoken by a living being; 2) we have evidence that the Noba/Nubians entered Nubia long after the Kushites had founded Napatan and Meroitic civilizations, so eventhough they live in Nubia today, they are not representative of Kushite people who they were often in conflict with; 3) Egyptian documents make it clear that the Blymmes also entered the area after the founding of Napatan and Meroitic civilization, so even if some people claim that the Beja=Blymmes this is conjecture. Consequently, even if Beja= Blymmes, they donot represent the Kushite people who founded the Napata and Meroe civilizations, because both the Noba and Blymmes entered Kush after its founding. This makes it clear that although Rilly's evidence looked promising, the data presented in support of the hypothesis fails to support his claim. You should avoid using common sense to guide your interpretation of what is valid or invalid. This method of knowing depends solely on your own biases and perceptions. If you feel I have not deciphered Meroitic or Harappan present alternative hypotheses, and evidence that falsifies by claim of decipherment. Using the scientific method , not common sense, must be used to prove me wrong. [/b] ......... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3