[gothic-l] Re: Scientific methodology, Kephart, Dhillon (was); Andreas

[faltin2001]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Chaudhary" 
<ravichaudhary2000 at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, andreas.schwarcz at u... wrote:
> >
> Msg: 7258
> 
> First let me say, that I wish to thank Dr Schwartz for the time he 
> has taken to write his response. By now I how our list owner has 
also 
> mollified Dr Faltin, and we will again see Dr Faltin's valuable 
> contributions.







Hi Ravi,

nobody has mollified me ... and please address be by the first name, 
as is common practice on these lists. Or do you prefer to be 
addressed as Mr. Chaudhary?





> 
> 
> Scientific method:-
> 
> May I request Dr Schwartz to resist using terms like `nonsense'; 
they 
> do cut any ice or add toward a solution or understanding.
> 



I think sometimes it is perfectly valid to use a clear term in order 
to express a clear opinion. If something makes no sense in ones view 
why should it be a problem to say so. Nonsense means that something 
makes no sense, and Andreas should be in a position to evaluate what 
makes sense and what doesn't with regards to our subject. 






> He is not quite right in claiming that there are various kinds of 
> scientific methodology, deductive, inductive, repeatable and non-
> repeatable.



I have an academic education as well and Andreas is certainly right, 
there are various kinds of scientific methodology. Some of these 
methods are more useful in certain fields than others though. Hence, 
Physicists often rely on repeatable experiments, while social 
scientists mostly resort to sampling techniques. You can read up on 
this in the works of Karl Popper for example. 





> 
> The essence of scientific methodology is data, and a hypothesis, 
and 
> the evolvement of the hypothesis, as new evidence surfaces. 
> Hypothesis or theories can, do, and should be modified, as more and 
> more variables are taken into account.
> 
> Yes, a Mechanical engineer and a medical doctor or a plasma physics 
> researcher can not , prima facie obtain in dept technical knowledge 
> of each other's field, but the basic principles and methods they 
will 
> apply will be the same- enquiry, hypothesis, empirical data.
> 



In subjects like history empirical data is often hard to come by or 
simply unoptainable. Instead, the historian often relies on one or 
more written sources, which he subjects to philological analysis. 






> If Dr Schwartz is suggesting that some History is an exception, and 
> inductive, deductive principles, and guesswork can make a solid 
> foundation, I will beg to differ.





In no way did Andreas state that guesswork can make a solid 
foundation for historical research. If I remember, Andreas teaches 
among others historical methodology and I am afraid that you are 
moving on very thin ice when you want to accuse Andreas of unsound 
historical methodology or lack of understanding of methodology. 

As I said above, the data available to the historian is essentially 
of a different nature to the data available to many physical 
scientists. As a result, a historian cannot subject his data to the 
same method of enquiry than many other academic fields. In fact, 
there is even dispute about the value of theory in historical 
research. A chemistist, would seek to optain his data by means of 
controlled experiments. He would than analyse his data in the 
framework of existing theory and derive his conclusions. A historian 
cannot normally do that. 








> ****************
> Kephart:
> 
> When Prof. Kephart wrote his book, late 19th century, terms like 
race 
> etc were commonly used, to define groups of people. This term may 
not 
> be politically correct today. If however no Ill intentions are 
there, 
> then we need not presume any such ill intentions, and use it like 
> intended" a technical term."
> 
> We are discussing Goths-
> 
> 
>  Q – are they a race ?, a group,?0 do they have an identity?.
> 



The Goths were certainly not a race. They were a polity. 



> If in the 19th century race was used to define group, in an 
> acceptable sense,  one need not be offended 100 years later.
> 


I don't think anybody was offended. Yet, Andreas is right, the use of 
the term race is no longer valid in this context, given our knowledge 
of what constitutes a race. 





> **********
> "Goths in India".
> I read 
> Franz Altheim, die Welt der Hunnen
> 
> 
> 
>  When such references are cited, the poster may well be satisfied, 
> that was an analogy. What does Franz Altheim say? Can you share it 
> with us? Post some excerpts??
> 
> 
>  Does this term mean " the world of the Huns"
> 
> What are his sources ? Does he consult any  non European Sources?,  
> Does he know any non European languages ?
> 


A professional historian writing a book on any subject of late 
antiquity will know the relevant languages needed to read the sources 
in its original. Hence, hence you can assume that historians of that 
period always read Latin and Greek and have access to all relevant 
other literature in authorative translation if necessary. 


Cheers
Dirk 


PS my messages arrive nowadays with long delays or not at all!



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/sOykFB/k9VGAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/