Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 19:24:41 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

FISHERGM@jmu.edu wrote:
> 
> S F:  I really liked your reply down to the point where
> you seem to assert that I'm defending something you call
> "the received theory", presumably about the age of the
> Sphinx.  That was not at all what I had in mind.  I have
> no theory at present about the age of the Sphinx.  I would
> be just as happy no matter which way it goes, if it goes
> one way or the other.

I meant by the "received theory" literally that which all of
us were taught who were schooled in the Western tradition,
and which Lefkowitz defends quite passionately in
"Not out of Africa".  I also have no theory of the sphinx
one way or the other, but it did not escape me how 
unscientific was the defense (in the tv documentary) 
of those attempting to "hold the line" in the face of 
the new theory advanced by Schoch/West.  
I find much of the defense of the view that
has come to be termed "eurocentric", as it relates (a) to
the race of the ancient Egyptians, and (b) to the extent
to which Greece is indebted to them, is also of the same 
unscientific character...  as we have seen from time to time
on this list.

> I fear that numerous people on this list assume that
> others of us are defending some received theory, when
> we aren't.  

Some certainly are.  The tone of the debate would be quite
different if it were purely a matter of scientific discourse,
dispassionate in its unbiased search for the truth.

> However, in this case, I do see how you
> could take my remarks that way, as a veiled way of
> saying there are dangers in holding to anything
> but an established theory (actually, I didn't know
> there was an established theory as to the age of the
> Sphinx --- it's been a question that has been discussed
> and up in the air as long as I can remember).  

That is indeed what I thought, but less to do with the
sphinx per se, which is tangential to the main debate,
and more to do with the NOA thesis in general.

> Or maybe
> you took it as a veiled way for me to say that the
> 10,000 BC theory (or whatever it is) is a dangerous
> one to hold.  Nothing of the sort.  I was just musing
> about the dangers of holding relatively unsupported
> hypotheses too long, in a philosophical sort of way.

That I clearly understood to be the main text, and
I responded in kind, philosophically, musing about the
dangers on the other side of the coin, which I judge
to be much greater in general.

> I shouldn't have brought the subject up, I guess.

I disagree.  The list is called athena-discuss, so I suppose
we ought to discuss the issues involved at all levels, from
the philosophical to the factual and every thing in-between. 
However, if I have incorrectly implied that you are a 
(veiled) defender of the "received theory", then I apologize.
As I reread what I earlier said:
 
 "Thank you for so far steering clear of
   the above, even though your prejudices and preconceptions
   are plain, and your fancy footwork in defense of the
   received view dazzling to behold, but ultimately unavailing."

I can see where it is both harsh and uncalled for, and 
I should have stopped after "above".  You have contributed
greatly to raising the general tenor of this discussion
list far above what usually obtains on the intenet.  If 
indeed you have been an opponent in debate, as opposed
merely to being an interlocutor, you have been a worthy 
one.

> Gordon Fisher     fishergm@jmu.edu

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next