Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:39:53 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: to S. Thomoas

Peter Daniels wrote:
(( cuts ))
> Have you looked yet at the evidence that writing began in Uruk IV?

No, on the very safe logical principle already expounded
that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> Of course I will not absolutely rule out the possiblity that someone,
> somewhere, had writing earlier than the Sumerians we know about. 

... as you effectively now have conceded.

> But,
> given the state of preservation of preduyynastic Egyptian materials in
> general, it is extrememly unlikely that every scrap of 4th-millennium
> or 5th-millennium Egyptian writing has not boon preserved. Far more
> likely is the hypothesis that there was no such thing.

This is actually an argument, as opposed to your reference
to Uruk IV.  There are two competing hypotheses, and you
ascribe greater likelihood for the one that says "no writing"
on the basis that,  had there been, we would have found
traces by now.  I do not agree, because there are all sorts
of reasons why ancient artifacts do not survive, or
remain hidden from researchers. I therefore give greater credence to
reasonable inference from what is at hand.  If the reasonable
inference is that the long chronology better fits the data
than the short chronology, then I follow that inference where
it leads, even if confirmatory evidence -- whose possible existence
you would seem to want to deny a priori -- is not apparently
available.

> I have no idea whether ahny texts by Archimedes survive; I have no idea
> whether Archimedes attributed anything to himself, to his teachers, or
> to anyone else. Now that I have read one book by Diop, I know that he is
> capable of throughly misunderstanding other scholars' work, so I would
> be suspicious of anything he claims the ancient sources say, and I would
> prefer to see his claims verified from independent authorities.

Your appeal to argumentum ab auctoritate (argument from
authority) is not a surprise, coming from a lexicographer.
But, should I ever be charged with a crime, I wouldn't want you
on my jury.  Perhaps it's my training as an engineer again,
but no structure stands, or machine works, on the say-so
of authority.  When I cite Diop, I do not cite him as
authority, and I do not seek to precipitate a duel between
competing authorities.  Whether I like Diop or excoriate him
is not at issue.  He makes very plain assertions, and he lays
bare the basis for those assertions, citing fact, and giving
argumentation based on fact, exactly in analogy with what
goes on in a court-room.  Attack his fact, attack his
argumentation, but argumentum ad hominem has no place in
the discourse, nor does argumentum ab auctoritate.

> As Bortiz likes to point out, it's cute how you now prefer to "Leave
> aside talk of Greeks and Afrocentrists" since the latter have been shown
> to be doing what the y accuse the former of.

Since you do not cite fact, nor give argument to support
this charge, I have to caution you against taking Mr. Ortiz
as any kind of authority, fine gentleman though he appears
to be.

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next