Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 19:34:19 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: state of the question

FISHERGM@jmu.edu wrote:

> Forgive me, S F Thomas, but "absence of evidence" just means
> to me that no conclusions can be drawn.  

You seem to forget... absence of evidence was being adduced
to refute a contention, which in contrast to the attempted
refutation, was based on evidence (rainfall-induced weathering)
that was there for all to see.  It is that to which I objected, 
and I remember putting the matter formally, not only rhetorically:
it is that to attempt to use modus tollendo tollens

   [not-B & ( A -> B ) ] -> not-A  

by asserting the premise "not-B" (strict absence) when in fact
all we have is "don't know" (absence of evidence) is simply
unavailing from a logical standpoint.  Try another line of
attack was all I said.  Nothing that was said defeated this 
logical contention.  And indeed we had attempts to suggest
chemical weathering, erosion due to flooding of the Nile, among
other fanciful nonsense masquerading as competing hypotheses.
Fine.  At least logically they are not indefensible.  Just
empirically far-fetched to anyone looking at the matter 
dispassionately.  (I am biased, I freely admit; but I am able,
like Diop, to set aside those biases when looking at evidence--
it is a form of "reality-checking" that engineers ignore at
their peril, so I'm used to separating mere wish from harsh
reality.)

> Various hypotheses
> can be put forth, and *tested*, but to hold to any one
> hypothesis (or set of hypotheses) in favor of others is
> not my style.  

If those who wrote the history books being attacked by
the afrocentrists were equally as agnostic as you, there might be
no need for this debate.  But we know that not to be the case.
Therefore your agnosticism cannot rescue those who handed
down the received theories, for they had rather strong, and, 
it is now evident, erroneous views.

> In the absence of evidence and reasoned
> supports, one just gets a bunch of competing hypotheses
> --- none of which may, in the end, be the truth.  

As a purely logical matter, I cannot disagree.  But as applied 
to the issues at hand in this debate, there is plenty of evidence
to work with.  The issue precisely is which are the hypotheses
better supported by the evidence.  As to whether the Egyptians
were black, I think the answer has to be "yes, beyond any doubt".
As to whether there was "influence", there too the answer
has to be "yes, beyond any doubt".  At best there can be
some disputation as to whether the borrowing was "massive" or
merely slight.  There might also be some disputation as to
whether the debt was in fact of the nature of theft, having
in mind Diop's charge of plagiarism.  Given the evidence
adduced by Diop and James, I am persuaded that indeed there was
plagiarism, therefore  a fortiori I believe there was massive
"borrowing", or theft, as Diop and James assert. But I appreciate that 
a competing hypothesis could logically be entertained, viz. innocent,
independent reinvention, but it strikes me as being incredible.
Nothing yet said on this list has persuaded me otherwise.  
I am still awaiting, however, David Meadows' grand synthesis
deriving from methods of rigorous source criticism prescribed
by the Academy.

> And
> in numerous situations, the truth may never be known
> while I and you and anyone else on this list is alive.

The truth, as hypothesized by Diop and James, and as
conceded by Bernal as to competitive plausibility, seems to
me in the broad outlines to be quite simple, and staring
us in the face.  It is that the writers of the received history
*lied*, with malice aforethought, for reasons which also are clear.

> My reaction to this is to live with uncertainty, as
> well as harmony and balance (as the Ma'at people recommend).

I wrote a book on Fuzziness and Probability.  I know and
understand uncertainty.  Not only can I live with it, I can
characterize it with conceptual precision, even sometimes
numerical precision (which note, is not the same as getting
rid of it).  Uncertainty does not require agnosticism.  And 
in this case, I see no justification for agnosticism; it is
a scholarly cop-out calculated to deny the undeniable.

> Gordon Fisher     fishergm@jmu.edu

Regards,

Contents | Previous | Next