PZ Myers. 2004 Dec 23. Time to cancel your National Geographic subscriptions, everyone. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/time_to_cancel_your_national_geographic_subscriptions_everyone/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Thursday, December 23, 2004
Time to cancel your National Geographic subscriptions, everyone
They're peddling lies to children.
Ms. Sarah Ives, reporter for National Geographic Kids, you are on my naughty list of credulous, bad, lazy journalists. Don't let this kind of crap slide by.
- Hell that's more depressing to me than the Dickensian thing I wrote. The Nat'l Geo reaches millions. Besides, a friend of mine who got back from Iraq this year told me that gentiles and visitors can easily find merchants on the streets of any busy Bahgdad market willing to sell them genuine peices of Noah's Ark. No climbing into the mountains or anything.
-
Agreed, this is gross buffoonery, but ANY expedition, no matter how silly, is worth reporting—even if it's to say that "Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center is mounting an expedition to Mississippi to prove that every single plantation owner had children by his slaves." In my continuing crusade to find historical foundations for middle-eastern oral/written traditions, I think there was a dude on a boat during what was obviously a truly great flood. There is zero evidence that flood waters did anything more than cover floodplanes and fill in the Black Sea, but there could still be a vessel(s) of some sort, although wherever it landed it would have been scavenged for building materials or firewood.
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 01:44 PM
-
I imagine one can also buy fragments of the true cross. Or maybe they're finally out, given that all of the fragments of the true cross sold to pilgrims over the years probably stack up to enough wood to have built the ark.
#: Posted by paperwight on 12/23 at 01:45 PM
-
So, why wasn't Nat'l Geo interested enough to ask for machine readable copies of said satellite images, or at least geographic coordinates of where this supposedly was seen, along with time?
Did they miss the opportunity to ask why this was only found now? Or is that because of the effects of highly politicized glacier melt for which there is no evidence?
Does Nat'l Geo have a more sophisticated version of this in their full-up magazine? Or is this story destined to be a purely pediatric affliction?#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/23 at 01:45 PM -
Recommended (good old-fashioned) reading: Ceram's "Gods, Graves and Scholars". Also, anything on Gilgamesh-based folk tales.
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 01:48 PM
-
Agreed, this is gross buffoonery, but ANY expedition, no matter how silly, is worth reporting
Yes, it should be reported somewhere, but should every PR move by funamentalists be peddled to children as science? If the Flat Earth Society claimed to be mounting an expedition to the edge of the Earth, do you think National Geographic Kids should tell children that it's honest, credible research? -
How silly. The image is obviously that of Noah's lost B-58 Hustler. That's the one he used to drop the A-bomb on some guys who built their own ark, the one they loaded two of every dinosaur on.
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 01:59 PM
- That should read "fundamentalists"... I can't type.
-
http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/b58.html
Just in case you doubt me. This is proof that Noah had a B-58 years before the US government revealed it to the world.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 02:02 PM -
google search: "ARTICLE_ID=38220"
<object," McGivern told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington.</em>
Yeah, I'll bet. I smell a scam, folks.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 02:03 PM - Mark Only a true Wings Disc Channel buff would know that looks like a B-58 Hustler. You're busted!
-
That should read: "These new photos unequivocally show a man made object," McGivern told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington.
Yeah, uh huh.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 02:07 PM -
DS, I'm just an old model builder. When I was a kid, you could predict my answer to the question "What do you want for your birthday/Christmas?" It was always, "A model." And how cool does a B-58 look? Especially for a half-century-old design. A half a century! It just beats the heck out of me how Convair managed to design one just like Noah built. Convergent evolution, or evidence for intelligent design?
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 02:23 PM
-
Hmmm, my uncle told me about the cheap DVDs of movies not yet released on DVD, that can be purchased on the streets of Baghdad. But he never mentioned Noah's Ark. haha. I'll have to ask him about that.
If the Flat Earth Society claimed to be mounting an expedition to the edge of the Earth, do you think National Geographic Kids should tell children that it’s honest, credible research?
That would be an incredibly long expedition, requiring years of coverage. haha!!! ;)
Anyway, I lost faith in National Geographic because of their Evolution article...
Not the one in the print magazine, the one on the web.
The problem best described here:
the nonist - ape shit:
"anyhow, i went to their website to post the story for my compatriots here (the issue was actually pretty good) only to find that their firm stance on the issue was in fact not very firm. below a snippet of the article they presented a bunch of links for related reading, over half of which are intelligent design / creationist dookie, or centered on “the controversy.” kind of undermines the giant “no” doesn’t it? add to this the fact that they have set up a forum specifically to debate evolution and the “set the record straight” nature of their issue is essentially nullified." - The Face on Mars has landed.
-
Hmmm. This is dated last May. Didn't You and I both blog about it at the time? By the way, looks like he never made the trip. The Turkish government refused his visa application (http://starbulletin.com/2004/09/03/news/story9.html). Ararat is at the confluence of the Turkish,Iranian, and Armenian borders and has been a closed military zone since the 50's. It would be nice if they would let some climbers and camera crews in to look at that rock formation and put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
#: Posted by John McKay on 12/23 at 04:07 PM
-
Come now, pz. Archaeologists use religious mythology all the time to identify and seek out lost civilizations and their artifacts, and it is scientifically irrelevant whether or not they personally subscribe to the mythology in question. If these particular archaeologists happen to be Christians, that's no reason to scream bloody murder and cancel your National Geographic subscription! After all, what kind of science periodical would knuckle under to someone who demands, on the strength of sheer personal prejudice, that they suppress reportage on the archeological investigations of religiously committed scientists, thus demonstrating to children and adults alike that science defers to mere opinion? Shame on you!
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 04:14 PM
-
This is not archaeology, unless it's very well camouflaged. Searching satellite imagery for evidence of Noah's ark is like searching imagery of Mars for evidence of alien civilizations (thanks, Wayne).
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 04:34 PM
-
Somewhat comparably irritating is this CNN article about the discovery of stone jars at Cana: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/21/jesus.miracle.ap/
The article contains this statement:
"Christian theologians attach great significance to the water-to-wine miracle at Cana.
The act was not only Jesus's first miracle, but it also came at a crucial point in the early days of his public ministry -- when his reputation was growing, he had just selected his disciples and was under pressure to demonstrate his divinity."
The description of miracles as if they actually happened (without even a caveat clause (e.g. "as devout Christians believe," or some such thing)) is acutely annoying to me. Also, the bland assumption that the historical Jesus claimed divinity--very doubtful, but treated as simple fact here. I really cannot stand journalists.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 04:39 PM -
Neurode wrote:
Archaeologists use religious mythology all the time to identify and seek out lost civilizations and their artifacts
Er... Are you sure you haven't confused understanding archaeology with an evening in watching Indiana Jones?#: Posted by on 12/23 at 05:06 PM -
"Er… Are you sure you haven’t confused understanding archaeology with an evening in watching Indiana Jones?"
Very well then. Tigerbear, no doubt an amateur or professional archaeologist with a deep understanding of archaeological methods, may be just the right person to explain to everybody why all real-life archaeologists, unlike Indiana Jones, roundly ignore religious mythology in their investigations. I know that I, for one, very much want to dispel my longstanding confusion on this point, of which suprisingly few archaeology buffs have so much as an inkling.
I hereby yield the podium to tigerbear.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 06:07 PM -
Those fools... Don't they know that Noah's Ark is in Wisconsin.
http://www.noahsarkwaterpark.com/#: Posted by on 12/23 at 06:31 PM -
I imagine one can also buy fragments of the true cross.
I'm sure Ned Flanders will be more than happy to tell you where he got his bit which saved him from getting killed by Mafia assassins with poor aim.
Wasn't this expedition supposed to be completed, like, 6 months ago? -
National Geographic later exposed the ark "expedition" as a publicity stunt.
BTW, the Church of Critical Thinking has been keeping an eye on this issue for some time.#: Posted by Richard Chappell on 12/23 at 07:00 PM - What's the standard error on the "98%?"
-
I am very sure that I´ve seen variations of this expedition "story" and "pictures" since the sixties or earlier. I am very, very sure.
I suspect this expedition and pictures are another journalistic urban myth which the media nonchalantly and lazily (at best) continues to perpetuate decade after decade.
Projectile vomit shame on National Geographic. When`s the expedition leaving to rediscover Eden?#: Posted by on 12/24 at 01:17 AM -
Neurode wrote:
Very well then. Tigerbear, no doubt an amateur or professional archaeologist with a deep understanding of archaeological methods, may be just the right person to explain to everybody why all real-life archaeologists, unlike Indiana Jones, roundly ignore religious mythology in their investigations. I know that I, for one, very much want to dispel my longstanding confusion on this point, of which suprisingly few archaeology buffs have so much as an inkling.
I hereby yield the podium to tigerbear.
It is simply a false dichotomy to assume that archaeologists ignore religious mythology. It merely isn't relevant to a great deal of what they do (how, for example, could they use religious mythology to study the Stone Age?).
Second, what does "identify and seek out lost civilisations" refer to? If it means uncovering a mysterious citadel every other weekend, then you've got a pretty odd idea about what actual archaeological research looks like (it involves lots of mud and endless filing, as I recall). If you mean it in a very very general sense - studying the Romans perhaps, I still don't see how studying religious mythology (especially when there are many Classical period writers who are incredibly more relevant)has particular relevance to a dig, for example, on Hadrian's Wall. Plus, many archaeologists study sites of extant civilisation (industrial archaeology in Britain, for example).
Finally, although much archaeological work comes out of land surveying and aerial photography, this does not mean that scouring images of Mt Ararat for Noah's Ark is anything like serious archaeology - and to argue that it is demeans archaeology as a discipline just as readily as assuming that all workers in Egypt are after the location of The Ark of the Covenant, those in Jerusalem are after The Holy Grail and those in Northern India are after the Sankara Stones.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 07:36 AM -
Eden? Isn't it in Kansas? I'm sure I stopped by the site once while driving cross-country . . .
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 09:18 AM -
Not everyone is convinced that McGivern and his group have found Noah's ark. There is still no proof that the ark exists.
"We think that, with the hundreds of explorers who have visited the region, if the ark was jutting out of the ice, it would be obvious," said Rex Geissler, president of ArcImagining, an organization that has surveyed Mount Ararat.
You've pointed out an impressive lie, appreciate your kindness in warning me against such terrible things.#: Posted by Visiting from the Wine on 12/24 at 10:19 AM -
In responding to tigerbear, it suffices to offer a sampling of professional opinion. Nelson Gluek was a Biblical archaeologist who made the cover of Time in 1963. Here's an encyclopedia entry on him (from encyclopedia.com):
"(glook, glĬk) , 1900-1971, American archaeologist and educator, b. Cincinnati, grad. Univ. of Cincinnati, 1920, Ph.D. Univ. of Jena, Germany, 1926. Among the more than 1,000 sites in the Middle East that Glueck uncovered were the copper mines of King Solomon and the ancient Red Sea port of Ezion Geber. In 1947 he became president of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati; from 1950 he served as president of the merged Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. He wrote several books on archaeology, including Explorations in Eastern Palestine (4 vol., 1934-51), The Other Side of the Jordan (1940), The River Jordan (1946), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (1959), Deities and Dolphins (1965), and Hesed in the Bible (1968)."
Now, here's what Dr. Glueck had to say about Old Testament archaeology:
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
This is no surprise, really, particularly with regard to an ancient culture which saw itself and its history as having religious significance. In such societies, the distinction between history and religious mythology is apt to become blurred. Archaeologists are aware of this, and often read religious texts as quasi-historical accounts. As William F. Albright (namesake of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research) observed regarding the Old Testament,
"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions."
The effect is cumulative; as noted Biblical scholar Merrill Unger has stated,
"Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds."
In other words, archaeology has discovered, and continues to discover, much of what we know about the Middle East by using the OT as an historical framework.
Attacking a science periodical for recognizing this fact, or praising one which attempts to make a joke out of it, is asinine from a scientific standpoint. As a scientist, pz needs to realize that his outburst against National Geographic for "lying to children" runs egregiously afoul of standard scientific boundaries (whether or not NG was merely trying to be funny).#: Posted by on 12/24 at 11:39 AM -
(Of course, that's assuming that pz himself wasn't merely trying to be funny, in which case his present infraction is limited to off-color and possibly self-deprecative humor...)
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 11:49 AM
-
As far as I'm aware, the Old Testament is actually a rather unreliable text for Middle Eastern archaeology (it in no way compares to the record from Egypt, for example). I find your sources rather dubious, Neurode, and their closer connection to theological learning rather than to archaeology as a discipline is unsurprising.
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 12:32 PM
-
Very good then, tigerbear - accepted sources on Middle Eastern archaeology, including world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology, are "dubious". Forgive me if I'm forced to dispute your opinion, which flies in the face of archaeological fact and tradition.
I'm afraid that despite your arguments, if I may loosely refer to them as such, pz still has some answering of his own to do.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 12:40 PM -
I hate posting here sometimes. I just lost a post to the ether. Suffice it to say Neurode, you certainly like the argument from authority. Also I wouldn't consider Glueck's statement a "world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology". Perhaps early 20th centurey, but even that is questionable.
As for myth and archaeology, archaeologists certainly use myth as a source for furthering understanding. For example, in light of the Popul Vuh, interpretation of offerings at caves and cenotes take on extra religious significance, and the importance, politically and religiously, of the Mesoamerican ball game is much more evident, but we don't see archaeologists looking for the One True entrance to Xibalba, simply because it doesn't SS nything by doing so. Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It's not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides. These kinds of searches are "tourist archaeology", having more in common with the plunder archaeology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, typefied by the stories of Alan Quatermaine and Raiders of the Lost Ark, than anything remotely scientific.
Besides, when are the religious going to admit that evidence or no, it doesn't really matter to whether or not they find their faith valid? -
Neurode wrote in various messages:
no doubt an amateur or professional archaeologist with a deep understanding of archaeological methods
Yo. Well, not a deep understanding, but clearly more than you. I've at least been on a dig. I still have a pint of dirt from it. I'm thinking about selling it as magical preservation medium to gullible people.
may be just the right person to explain to everybody why all real-life archaeologists, unlike Indiana Jones, roundly ignore religious mythology in their investigations. I know that I, for one, very much want to dispel my longstanding confusion on this point, of which suprisingly few archaeology buffs have so much as an inkling.
That last bit should tell you something. First, no one said anything about ignoring religous mythology. You invented that, not PZ or tigerbear. Second, myths are generally useless. "They lived between two big rivers" won't do you a damn bit of good. At most, mythology hints that a vagely-described somebody was somewhere between within this hundred-square-mile radius if it's really, really specific, around maybe five to twenty thousand years ago. If the entire story wasn't just made up, or elaborated to such an extent that it might as well have been.
Yup. The Bible sure is a useful archaeological tool, boy howdy.
Very good then, tigerbear - accepted sources on Middle Eastern archaeology, including world-renowned cynosures of twentieth century archaeology, are “dubious”.
No. You did not cite an accepted source. You cited a wannabe who interpreted everything he found to agree with his religious views. Biblical archaeololgy is not archaeology, any more than creation science is real science. You're damn right that's a dubious source.
PZ has nothing to answer for. He did not discount the article for describing the work of Christian "archaeologists" (ha), but for telling children that the ravings of an idiot nutjub have some credence. They don't. McGivern found some dirt on a mountain and convinced himself that it's a holy object. On the off chance that is really is a structure, the odds of it being Noah's ark (rather than absolutely anything else) are so infinitesimal as to be absurd.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 01:39 PM -
When one talks about accepted methodology in a discipline, as opposed to specific findings or their interpretations, what you call "arguments from authority" are quite acceptable. How better to learn about the methods employed by archaeologists than to ask a few? As it happens, the vast majority of archaeologists who study the area in which Noah's Ark reportedly existed use the Old Testament as one of their primary sources. Now, as it happens, Noah's Ark is prominently mentioned in the OT, a repository of "religious mythology" which has been found substantially accurate regarding certain lines of Middle Eastern history, which lends a certain amount of historical credence to its existence. These are facts, and it really wouldn't pay for you to argue otherwise.
By the way, regarding your own style of argumentation - it is quite common, particularly among those of atheistic or materialistic persuasions, to resort to attacking or casting doubt on the reputations of specific scientists (et cetera) with whom they disagree. Such arguments are called "ad hominem", and are widely regarded as both unacceptable and reprehensible. So I hope you're not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.
You say that "Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It’s not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides." That's incorrect. Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole. The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.
You do understand this, don't you?#: Posted by on 12/24 at 01:50 PM -
(By the way, Megan, your professed participation in an archaeological dig means that you have a profound understanding of that aspect of archaeological methodology which involves operating a garden spade. Unfortunately, I see no indication that your understanding goes any farther.)
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 01:56 PM
-
The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.
You do understand this, don’t you?
Certainly better than you would, or so it seems. The Biblical Flood myth was not just the destruction of "a civilization" but of the entire world. There is no hydrographic or other geologic evidence that such an event ever occured, making this whole thing a story, not a fact, therefore it gets treated as such.
Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole.
Hence the use that I described, with archaeologists examining the uses of such mythological structures in the culture, both in the day to day and under special conditions, and across cultures, with things like cross-cultural examinations of numerous flood mythologies, like the Gilgamesh epic, which by the way (textually) predates the Biblical version by centuries.
So I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.
I'm not the one taking a statement out of context from 1960 and claiming it is representative of work done over the entire century, nor am I the one claiming that the quote is an accurate portrayal of archaeological methodology, especially modern methodology in light of the revolution in archaeology in the mid 60's.
Of course, I'm willing to bet that he wasn't talking about the Ark or the Flood when he said that, considering his emphasis is in the Iron Age II period, not a bit of which stands as uncontested and absolutely authoritative.
Biblical archaeololgy is not archaeology, any more than creation science is real science. You’re damn right that’s a dubious source.
Don't let Neurode's tactics fool you, Megan. There is good Biblical archaeology, of which some has been done by Glueck and his mentor Albright.
By the way, Megan, your professed participation in an archaeological dig means that you have a profound understanding of that aspect of archaeological methodology which involves operating a garden spade. Unfortunately, I see no indication that your understanding goes any farther.
Said by someone who has never been on a well-run field school. In any field school worth their salt, no help is allowed out in the field without some basic understand of why they are there, how they are doing things, and how it's not about treasure hunting. At most institutions this menas at least one mid-level archaeology class that discusses methodology and site excavation planning. Without that kind of background, mistakes are bound to be made. -
Neurode wrote:
When one talks about accepted methodology in a discipline, as opposed to specific findings or their interpretations, what you call “arguments from authority” are quite acceptable. How better to learn about the methods employed by archaeologists than to ask a few? As it happens, the vast majority of archaeologists who study the area in which Noah’s Ark reportedly existed use the Old Testament as one of their primary sources.
Really? I'd always been taught that the primary source for archaeological research was actual empirical evidence discovered in the field. I'm obviously not familiar with the Biblical approach, then. I would suspect mainstream archaeology isn't familiar with it either.
Now, as it happens, Noah’s Ark is prominently mentioned in the OT, a repository of “religious mythology” which has been found substantially accurate regarding certain lines of Middle Eastern history, which lends a certain amount of historical credence to its existence. These are facts, and it really wouldn’t pay for you to argue otherwise.
Hmmmm: "certain lines of Middle Eastern history"? So that they lend "certain amounts of historical credence"? I wouldn't attempt to argue with "facts" that come with that many qualifications. It would be entirely redundant.
<style of argumentation - it is quite common, particularly among those of atheistic or materialistic persuasions, to resort to attacking or casting doubt on the reputations of specific scientists (et cetera) with whom they disagree. Such arguments are called “ad hominem”, and are widely regarded as both unacceptable and reprehensible. So I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that Drs. Glueck and Albright were anything but what they are widely recognized as being, namely, renowned authorities on Middle Eastern archaeology, as this would cast considerable doubt on the value of your opinion.</blockquote>
How lovely you know what an ad hominem is. As you do, perhaps you could take Megan up on the points of her argument, rather than dismiss her with an offhand insult.
You say that “Searching for the One True Ark is much the same. It’s not going to add to the understanding of a site or cultural phenomenon that a general understanding of the myth already provides.” That’s incorrect. Archaeology studies not just how the people of ancient cultures lived, but the important events that influenced ancient cultures as a whole. The Flood event, such as it may have been, purportedly corresponds to the destruction of an entire civilization, and arguably exterted a profound influence on the civilizations which followed.
The primary source for any inferences about a physical event such as you describe would still be the archaeological (and also geological) record. Unless you consider the Flood to be a myth; in which case the Old Testament would be only one amongst many sources that would be possible to use to trace the myth's cultural transmission.
In the paragraph above you lump the search for a specific artefact mentioned, and important to, a religious text (one of countless many at the time) with the investigation of a presumably geological event with widespread impact.
They quite obviously aren't the same sort of thing at all.
MattH's critique remains entirely valid.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 03:06 PM -
MattH says that "The Biblical Flood myth was not just the destruction of 'a civilization' but of the entire world."
Matt is no doubt to be commended for his punctilious attention to the wording of the story. However, it has often been noted that the ancients, who lacked a knowledge of modern geography, tended to equate localized parts of the world with the world as a whole.
Matt continues: "I’m not the one taking a statement out of context from 1960 and claiming it is representative of work done over the entire century, ... "
No such claim was made; I merely claimed that in the history of modern archaeology, and 20th century Middle Eastern archaeology in particular, Glueck's name and achievements are widely renowned, and that his methods were well within the accepted standards of his science.
"...nor am I the one claiming that the quote is an accurate portrayal of archaeological methodology, ... "
It most certainly IS an accurate portrayal of an important aspect of archaeological methodology, namely, the aspect demanding that all available sources be duly considered, particularly textual sources with many well-established points of historical accuracy.
Lastly, I fail to understand the relevance of this:
"Said by someone who has never been on a well-run field school. In any field school worth their salt, no help is allowed out in the field without some basic understand of why they are there, how they are doing things, and how it’s not about treasure hunting. At most institutions this menas at least one mid-level archaeology class that discusses methodology and site excavation planning. Without that kind of background, mistakes are bound to be made."
Students are used on archaeological digs all the time, and some of them never succeed in graduating. Sometimes (but not always), this is because they turn out to lack a sufficient understanding of what they are doing. In fact, some students who actually succeed in graduating do so in spite of serious shortcomings, which subsequently limit their career advancement in the field. In any case, we're talking about a higher level of archaeological investigation than lending manual labor on a dig.
When all is said and done, pz still owes an apology for impudently popping off at a venerable scientific publication. You can't excuse that kind of misbehavior by empty rationalization alone.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 03:21 PM -
No such claim was made; I merely claimed that in the history of modern archaeology, and 20th century Middle Eastern archaeology in particular, Glueck’s name and achievements are widely renowned, and that his methods were well within the accepted standards of his science.
[...]
It most certainly IS an accurate portrayal of an important aspect of archaeological methodology, namely, the aspect demanding that all available sources be duly considered, particularly textual sources with many well-established points of historical accuracy.
Glueck's work is certainly not well within the historic framework of modern American archaeological methodology, nor even by Levantine archeological methods. The introduction and wholesale adoption of the Wheeler-Kenyon method in Near Eastern archaeology in the mid 50's through the early 60's changed the way archaeology was done there. Glueck's work is not the same, nor does it meet current methodological standards. As for textual sources, they are to be taken into account, but they are not the prime shaper of archaeological investigation. Too many times an historical text, or even set of texts, has been found to be incorrect through archaeological investigation. For example, the earliest known historical record of gold procesing in West Virginia is at least a few decades later than the archaeological evidence for it. Further, your knowledge of Levantine archaeology seems to end with Glueck's work, ignoring half of an entire century. The scholarly work done since casts serious doubt on the work he has done, work shaped in large part by a methodology that relies entirely too much on the "historic" works he would've liked to have proved true, and digging methods that are nowhere near as reliable.
When all is said and done, pz still owes an apology for impudently popping off at a venerable scientific publication. You can’t excuse that kind of misbehavior by empty rationalization alone.
It's not like they are an authoritative entity or anything, now is it? Nor was he impudent for doing so. If they are implying soemthing is scientific and it isn't, more power to him. -
MattH, I provided the short biography of Glueck for an important reason: it refers to his amazing scientific productivity. In short, he was responsible for the discovery of many hundreds of archaeological sites in the Middle East, some of them quite important.
As (I assume) we both know, what speaks the loudest in science are results, and Glueck was an extremely productive scientist. Virtually all of his material discoveries were made within the bounds of archaeological methodology as defined by a large percentage of archaeologists in his own day, and modern methodological refinements notwithstanding, many of his interpretations remain credible. That some fraction of his interpretations have since been questioned is quite beside the point, since any archaeologist must expect to be second-guessed as new facts are uncovered and new methods employed.
In any event, the need to pay close attention to available textual sources, and to the potential for those sources to contain archaeologically relevant information, has not changed and will never change. It is an incontrovertible fact that the Old Testament, being an exceptionally informative and well-preserved artifact in its own right, contains a wealth of valuable archaeological information.
Thus, when you state summarily that
"It’s not like they [National Geographic] are an authoritative entity or anything, now is it?",
you need to be reminded that such publications are typically very careful to ensure that their contents are scientifically and historically accurate, and are arguably even more vulnerable to attacks on their reputations than textbooks or primary research publications. To attack such a publication without careful justification is to risk damaging it unfairly, and thus opens the attacker to charges of impudence and much worse.
I've read enough of pz's writings to know that he's probably a capable (if highly opinionated) research biologist. However, I've noticed that he tends to be rather a junkyard dog on occasion, and if one is going to make it a habit of acting that way, one needs to have all his ducks lined up in a row at all times. Having found this not to be true of pz, I have regretfully concluded that when it comes to archaeology and certain other fields, there is no good reason to believe that the only ducks in his range are not waddling around in drunken circles, deprived of flight by excessive cargos of antireligious bigotry.
Therefore, I must finally conclude that pz lacks sufficient justification for his outburst, is badly out of line, and owes National Geographic a sincere apology.
Merry Chrismas.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 05:49 PM -
So is there an ark or not?
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 07:58 PM
-
Wasn't there an expedition to Mt Ararat like 30 years ago? And another one between then and now? Is this not a regular scam to gull the gullible, akin to expeditions to find the holes at the poles?
#: Posted by on 12/24 at 09:03 PM
-
it has often been noted that the ancients, who lacked a knowledge of modern geography, tended to equate localized parts of the world with the world as a whole.
Ancients also lacked a knowledge of contemporary common sense, and tended to equate their own (physical) thoughts and feelings with the existence of a omniscient god.
It's not good practice to take advantage of the obvious flaws in the Bible in some cases, and then ignorantly brush them aside in others cases.#: Posted by on 12/24 at 09:47 PM -
Therefore, I must finally conclude that pz lacks sufficient justification for his outburst, is badly out of line, and owes National Geographic a sincere apology.
Merry Chrismas.
As do you, Mr Neurode. See Geographic in September.
I would also like to heartily recommend this site for, um, modern, scientific, and objective work on Biblical archaeology.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/24 at 10:17 PM -
I provided the short biography of Glueck for an important reason: it refers to his amazing scientific productivity. In short, he was responsible for the discovery of many hundreds of archaeological sites in the Middle East, some of them quite important.
As (I assume) we both know, what speaks the loudest in science are results, and Glueck was an extremely productive scientist. Virtually all of his material discoveries were made within the bounds of archaeological methodology as defined by a large percentage of archaeologists in his own day, and modern methodological refinements notwithstanding, many of his interpretations remain credible. That some fraction of his interpretations have since been questioned is quite beside the point, since any archaeologist must expect to be second-guessed as new facts are uncovered and new methods employed.
Paul S. Martin was one of the most prolific archaeologists in the early part of the 20th century, discovering hundreds of sites, including one of my favorites, Lowry Pueblo, yet even he considered his earlier work limited and incomplete in light of the shift in archaeology in the 1960's. Glueck likely didn't recognize the changes because they refuted much of his work, not a fraction. In fact, Glueck's most cited interpretations, those of Tell el-Kheleifah, have been shown to be incorrect. The work of Glueck that has stood the test of time is same kind of general information that any excavation will bring, pottery types, settlement patterns, structural diagrams; basic data in other words, while it's that same data that has refuted his interpretations. -
Again, MattH, while many of Glueck's interpretations have come under scrutiny with improvements in dating methods, pottery reappraisals and so on, this was only to be expected as the field has evolved and data have accumulated, particularly given the sheer volume and importance of his work.
Even if one grants the unpleasant fact that Glueck's scholarship was questioned by Gary Pratico ("Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal", which halves Glueck's estimate of the period during which Tell el-Kheleifeh was occupied), this is a far cry from accepting your assertion that most of Glueck's interpretations have been definitively "refuted". Questioned, perhaps; that was inevitable. But proven erroneous...so strong an accusation would merely imply that the accuser overestimates the levels of certainty that archaeology can generally achieve.
It seems considerably more likely that the only archaeologists with a blanket mistrust of Glueck's work are those with religious allergies complicated by sour grapes. Unfortunately, pz can't be vindicated merely by pointing to others who share his beef with religion.#: Posted by on 12/25 at 03:09 AM -
How did Glueck earn center stage here? McGivern was the one mentioned in the original Nat'l Geo article he complained about.
Incidently, the current issue of Science offers a report on a really old American civilization, dating from around or before the creation of the the world, by some so-called Christian sources.
The methdological problems I have with people like Glueck and McGivern is that, Biblical text in hand, they charge forward looking for evidence to verify it. They are thereby blinded to evidence which might contradict and refute it. They, as I've said in other contexts, repeatedly confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
I need no more evidence of this propensity on the part of religious sources than their own translations of the Bible itself. I've written on this elsewhere here. Another example, one I thought of at synagogue last night: Exodus 15:11. Most translations, even Judaic, gloss it as "Who is like You, LORD, among the gods that are worshipped?" or "Who is like You, LORD among the gods men worship?" or "Who is like You, LORD among the mighty?" In fact, it reads literally "Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH!" (See Everett Fox's translation and commentary, 1995, page 337.)
As is well known to Biblical scholars, translation is the first and most important form of commentary. Let's wish they act in accordance with that realization.
And that is why the Bible and Interpretation site I quoted is so valuable. They post research which isn't constrained to using only texts but any evidence which shouts at them from the ground, even in their understanding of Christian texts.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/25 at 09:55 AM -
This is simple. Glueck's work is a scientific failure. The very data he produced refuted his contetnion, not C-14 dating, not newer excavations, not some other dating technique. Glueck allowed his preconceptions regarding the inerrancy of the Bible to bias his conclusions. Bad science. Besides, even if he did the best work possible, in science we don't rely on authority, not even archaeology. And ton't give me the tripe that it's about methodology, because it's not. It's only his interpretation that you're arguing about. His methodology is horrible.
How did Glueck earn center stage here? McGivern was the one mentioned in the original Nat’l Geo article he complained about.
Sorry, my fault. I should have just said he's using an argument from authority and been done with it. -
Good Lord.
Whatever you happen to think of him, Nelson Glueck is among the foremost ME archaeologists in history. If you think that by slurring his scientific reputation despite his immense scientific productivity, you can somehow prove that the Old Testament and other textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information, then I'm really afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here. That would be asinine on its face.
When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period. There is no coherent argument against this fact; there is no appeal. You can't change it, and you can't refute it by saying "So-and-so erred by taking the OT as objective reportage; therefore, the OT is out the window of archaeology; furthermore, this constitutes a license to disregard major events reported therein." Science just doesn't work that way.
Of course, if you insist on taking this as a justification for attempting to interfere with pz's satisfaction of his moral and scientific obligations, I can't stop you. But those obligations stand nonetheless.#: Posted by on 12/25 at 02:13 PM -
Rabbi Nelson Glueck is the guy who is widely quoted as having said:
No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.
If that be the case, then clearly archaeology has severe problems of methodology on its own, because it then overtly conflicts with not only physical science but history. Indeed, this statement, whether taken out of context or not, is widely used to support creationism.
Irrespective of Rabbi Glueck's reputation, his viewpoint has a few problems of consistency with physical evidence.
I suspect the problem is not with archaeology and anthropology, which seem pretty modern and scientific from what I have seen, but, rather, Glueck's own brand of archaeology, which he may have considered the only legitimate archaeology.
Rabbi Gunther Plaut's own edit of the Torah, embracing biblical criticism as strongly as it did--and heavily criticized itself for doing so--is considered pretty conservative these days, apologizing for things the text itself says, and explaining them away.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/25 at 02:39 PM -
What have I done to make Neurode shun my responses? Perhaps they "fly in the face of archaeological fact and tradition"? If this is true I can only assume this is because I am trained (somewhat) in a mainstream empirical branch of archaeology with which s/he isn't familiar, and this is something for which I cannot apologise at all.
Neurode wrote:
Nelson Glueck is among the foremost ME archaeologists in history. If you think that by slurring his scientific reputation despite his immense scientific productivity, you can somehow prove that the Old Testament and other textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information, then I’m really afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree here. That would be asinine on its face.
If criticising a scientist's work as inaccurate, is a "slur", Neurode simply doesn't understand science; and where has anyone here written that "textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information". I certainly haven't.
I wrote:
If you mean it in a very very general sense - studying the Romans perhaps, I still don’t see how studying religious mythology (especially when there are many Classical period writers who are incredibly more relevant)has particular relevance to a dig, for example, on Hadrian’s Wall.
[new italics]
How can some textual evidence be more relevant than other pieces if it all should be ignored? Neurode appears to have heard of the ad hominem, but not the straw man. Ah well.
Neurode wrote:
When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period.
All available sources? Er, does that mean Egyptologists should consider "The Mummy Returns"?
Neurode wrote
[...] you can’t refute it by saying “So-and-so erred by taking the OT as objective reportage; therefore, the OT is out the window of archaeology; furthermore, this constitutes a license to disregard major events reported therein.
The (il)logical progression which Neurode describes is his/her own invention, and contrast markedly with the points I, for example have made: that often religious mythology isn't relevant to what archaeologists are investigating; secondly that religious texts can often be unreliable as sources of historical information.
I can't see any controversy in either statement.
Neurode wrote:
Of course, if you insist on taking this as a justification for attempting to interfere with pz’s satisfaction of his moral and scientific obligations, I can’t stop you. But those obligations stand nonetheless.
I see no signs of "moral and scientific obligations" going unsatisfied. I do however see one poster who obviously hasn't simply watched the Indiana Jones films and decided they are an authority on archaeology but unfortunately, might as well have done.
I hope this person, and all the rest of you have had a very Merry Christmas.#: Posted by on 12/25 at 06:15 PM -
When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period. There is no coherent argument against this fact; there is no appeal.
As tigerbear said, no one has said that textual material is ignored or discounted out of hand, but we don't consider each source to be equal, and for good reason. "Historical" texts are often the least reliable of all sources, and are treated as such, especially when it contradicts the data that is unearthed.
I'm not "slurring his scientific reputation", as he's already done as much himself. No matter how much he has done as far as discovering new sites, or how much earth he has turned, that's not scientific productivity. It's his own research design and shoehorned interpretations that he has been judged on, and he's been found to be lacking in most cases. If you don't believe me, by all means, provide me with a case of a number of citations that aren't narrow or in the context of a refutation. -
I think a lot of this can be understood in terms of the sets of assumptions an investigator begins with. In these areas it would be very useful to have these stated clearly. Admittedly some fields or schools of inquiry are defined by precisely which sets of assumptions they share. Nevertheless, it's useful for inter-field and inter-school discussion to make these very "up front" and clear.
I also think a lot of scientific archaeology is seen as threatening to theological and historical positions, probably even political positions. For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the historical event called "The Exodus" probably never happened. This is not because of any implausibility of "Sea of Reeds" parting or any such thing but, rather, that Canaan was an Egyptian territory and enclave through much of the time it was supposed to have occurred. There is even evidence of Israelite soldiers in pharoah's army manning border forts at the time. So, a mass escape from Egypt would deposit itself into the midst of more Egyptians.
Does this make the story of the Exodus silly? No, of course not. It is a formative myth, like the Illiad and Odyssey are for ancient Greece. It tells the personality and coming of age of a people. It's a great story.
Similarly, Masada is apparently fictional. Should people stop telling the tale? Would they? Nahhh.
What's silly, to me, is trying to go out and "prove" these are so. It's kind of like hiking to the top of Mount Olympus to verify the kinds of sandals Zeus wore.
Ditto, IMO, trying to base positions, practices, and ideas of modern Christianity on results from the "search for the historical Jesus". It's likely the results, if obtainable, would not be to modern Christianity's liking. The people closest to the historical Jesus (assuming he lived; probably did: smoke and fire) were killed off by the Romans in the seventh decade CE along with the Jewish residents of Jerusalem.
Oh well. It happens.
But why do these folks feel so threatened by this stuff? Or by the scientific fact of evolution? I do not dig that at all.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/25 at 09:04 PM -
For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the historical event called “The Exodus” probably never happened.
Rather, quotes should have been like:
For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the “historical event called The Exodus” probably never happened.
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/25 at 09:07 PM -
I see that the discussion continues.
First, Nelson Glueck left the field of ME archaeology much richer in raw data than when he found it. Thus, he initially lacked the advantage of being able to check his methods and hypotheses against his own eventual discoveries (an advantage with which he helped to provide for his critics). In Glueck's day, less dirt had been turned, and the temptation was that much greater to use the OT as an organizing framework; driven by the unrealistic expectations of financiers, archaeologists needed ways to tentatively organize hundreds of isolated digs into a big picture with scope and continuity. Clearly, nothing could touch the OT for that purpose. After all, in the first half of the 20th century, its historicity was not so clouded; Glueck's critics hadn't yet gotten around to attacking its archaeological applications, partially because he hadn't yet contributed the wherewithal. Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits. But then again, the envelope did need to be tested, and science advances not because scientists and their ideas are perfect, but by recognizing and correcting their imperfections after the fact. If we know better now, it is only because hindsight approaches 20-20 as lensed through the achievements of Glueck and others of that era.
On a related note, I find tigerbear's incoherent rambling about arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments a little annoying. I'm not the one who's been invoking ad hominem argumentation against (arguably) one of the greatest and most productive ME archaeologists of all time, and if using a quote by this gentleman amounts to an "argument from authority" despite the absolute, unmistakeable necessity of utilizing relevant textual sources in archaeological investigations, then everybody who has ever quoted somebody else in support of a position is guilty of "arguing from authority". That's plainly absurd - argument from authority becomes excessive only when one's whole argument is based solely on appeals to what somebody else has said or done. One scarcely needs to use that approach in order to make the point that any ME archaeologist who ignores the OT has rocks in his head. National Geographic has every right, and every obligation, to report on a purported expedition to investigate an event prominently reported in the Old Testament, and they are in no way "lying to children" by doing so.
No more diversions, please. Self-professed antireligious bigot pz (check out his Xmas Day Post) needs to - now, how should I put this - "come to Jesus" on the issue of antireligious bigotry and apologize, hat in hand and eyes on the ground, to the staff of a venerable science periodical which has done more for the image of science than pz could do in a hundred lifetimes. That's what he owes, and in the end, life has a marvelous way of extracting what people owe. Better to pay up on one's own terms than wait for the terms to be set to one's disadvantage.
Argue as you please, but wrong is still wrong.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 05:16 AM -
Neurode wrote:
On a related note, I find tigerbear’s incoherent rambling about arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments a little annoying.
I find it odd that I'm accused of "incoherent rambling" by someone who's latest post appears to have conceded all points about Nelson Glueck, the archaeologist to whom they referred to when making their argument in the first place.
Since the only reason for bringing this archaeologist's work up in the first place was in relation to this:
Neurode wrote:
Now, here’s what Dr. Glueck had to say about Old Testament archaeology:
“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
... only for this poster to go on to write in their most recent post:
Neurode wrote:
Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits.
I can't really see what Neurode has yet to concede apart that s/he has set up a straw man that asserts everyone who has argued here against him thinks religious mythology in general, and the Old Testament in particular, is to be actively ignored by archaeology.
To rehash yet again: no-one has said this. Instead they have merely stated that religious texts often aren't relevant to what archaeologists are doing, and often aren't accurate in what they describe.
Neurode wrote:
I’m not the one who’s been invoking ad hominem argumentation against (arguably) one of the greatest and most productive ME archaeologists of all time, and if using a quote by this gentleman amounts to an “argument from authority” despite the absolute, unmistakeable necessity of utilizing relevant textual sources in archaeological investigations, then everybody who has ever quoted somebody else in support of a position is guilty of “arguing from authority”. That’s plainly absurd - argument from authority becomes excessive only when one’s whole argument is based solely on appeals to what somebody else has said or done. [my italics]
Thus, by Neurode's own description, his response to me (post #30) is guilty of excessive use of the argument from authority. Yet I'm the one guilty of incoherent rambling?
Neurode wrote:
One scarcely needs to use that approach in order to make the point that any ME archaeologist who ignores the OT has rocks in his head.
I find this to be very curiously phrased and essentially inaccurate as an opposing point. MattH, and others such as myself have argued that it simply may not be relevant to what an archaeologist is doing. For example, an archaeologist working on Palaeolithic tool technologies in Israel won't find the Old Testament relevant (there's a bad pun lurking here, btw).
Neurode wrote:
National Geographic has every right, and every obligation, to report on a purported expedition to investigate an event prominently reported in the Old Testament, and they are in no way “lying to children” by doing so.
Yet Neurode also argues the Old Testament has apparently been tested "well beyond its limits" as an explanatory framework?!
Quite frankly, to argue as Neurode has demeans archaeology as a serious discipline.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 09:38 AM -
You've got to be kidding.
First, tigerbear, if my last post "appears to have conceded all points about Nelson Glueck," then I'm afraid you've been deceived by appearances. I've merely allowed that any archaeologist stands to be gainsaid by those who come after; that's the nature of the discipline. One possible error was mentioned, Glueck's estimate regarding the occupation of Tell el-Kheleifeh. As I say, a few of these are to be expected, more in some cases than in others.
But it is obviously quite another matter to attack Glueck's scientific reputation wholesale, or to issue a blanket accusation of systematic scientific fraud. I would correctly regard this as ad hominem drivel, I "concede" nothing in this regard, and I would ask that if you can't make distinctions of this kind, you keep your views to yourself.
As you know, my primary concern has been pz's unjustified attack on National Geographic (at the top of this thread). Thus, from my point of view, your specious interjections are off-topic, diversionary in effect, irrelevant, and in the final analysis, insignificant. I was merely being polite by responding you in the first place, and would ask that you bear this in mind. In particular, please refrain from ascribing to me any opinions I do not hold or concessions I have not made.
Do have a nice day.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 12:06 PM -
In Glueck’s day, less dirt had been turned, and the temptation was that much greater to use the OT as an organizing framework; driven by the unrealistic expectations of financiers, archaeologists needed ways to tentatively organize hundreds of isolated digs into a big picture with scope and continuity. Clearly, nothing could touch the OT for that purpose.
Aw, c'mon! Biblical criticism had been around for a century by the time he started.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/26 at 02:10 PM -
Neurode, you conceded a general point about Glueck, one which you made without qualification.
Neurode wrote:Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits.
There was no reference to Tell el-Kheleifeh in this statement and no specification of a particular instance of his explanatory framework overreaching itself. It is a generalist point about his work, and thus a concession.
I'm afraid oscillating between strong and weak versions of your own position in different posts merely shows a lack of confidence in your own argument, however much you'd like to assert that others are misreading you.
Oddly, those who've argued against you here have managed to clearly argue the same points throughout (where is Ophelia Benson when you need her?), and have not needed to resort to straw men or dodging people's responses with offhand comments (as you've done yet again with me) without actually rebutting their points.
I'd obviously prefer it if you'd accept that the level of incoherence in your posts is so high that you manage to fail your own definition of an excessive argument from authority in post #30. (If you disagree, you could argue how this isn't the case)
I'd also like to know why a archaeologist working on Palaeolithic tool technologies in Israel needs to read the Old Testament or be considered stupid, and exactly why Egyptologists should concern themselves with such ephemeral sources as "The Mummy Returns" (your opponents here would say they wouldn't be relevant, what would you say which would be consistent with your prior posts?).
Searching Mt. Ararat for Noah's Ark is not serious archaeology. Its the plot of an unmade Indiana Jones movie. I'd love for you to explain in detail how, actually, it is serious archaeology after all (rather than simply quote-mining several academics who have nice things to say about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament).
I'd suspect you can't, or you'd have done it earlier.
I am, by the way, having a rather good day. This has been very amusing.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 06:16 PM -
Wow, you atheists have an almost Nazi-like hatred for anybody and anything religious in nature. Do you guys fantasize about sending religious people to gas chambers, as well?
And it is well known that myths and religious texts are used regularly by archaeologists either as theological references for developing an objective history of what actually happened (and possibly to develop confirmation as to whether the text is correct in some regards) or for purposes of finding landmarks and such. There are MANY Biblical archaeologists out there, and many peer-reviewed, archaeological journals that cover the subject.
What a bunch of ideological, irrational, hatred-filled dumbasses you guys are. -
The Nazis were the ones who wore belt buckles that said "God With Us". 'Nuff said.
I agree that religious texts are used by Near East archaeologists to locate historical places. The problem is that when we actually find the places, the stories they tell through the evidence we uncover is totally unlike the stories the texts provide. For example, it is now widely accepted among professional archaeologists that the patriarchs probably never lived, the Exodus never happened, and Joshua's conquest never happened. Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel are likewise viewed as the myths they are, as both of them are totally uncorroborated by any evidence. You might try actually reading some of those peer-reviewed archaeological journals you so confidently appeal to. -
Ebon,
And you're the one who uses money that says "In God We Trust." If you think that everybody who is religious is a Nazi, then you're just an idiot and must have a seething hatred for this country and our civilization.
About this:
I agree that religious texts are used by Near East archaeologists to locate historical places. The problem is that when we actually find the places, the stories they tell through the evidence we uncover is totally unlike the stories the texts provide.
If you actually read what I said, you would see that I never said anything about the texts actually being 100% correct. What I said is that they use them as references, which is true!
And I do read those journals. My house here has dozens of books about archaeology. - Oh, and one other thing. It was the atheist Communists who rejected that a god existed who murdered eight times as many people as those pagan Nazis. Find other strawmen to use.
-
Arcane,
Noone here has demonstrated any hate except you and noone has compared anyone to the Nazis except you. In fact you have managed to violate Godwin's Law in your very first post.
Another thing that noone here has done is claim that archaeolgists do not often use mythological texts as part of their work. That is your very own strawman and one that has absolutely nothing to do with pz's original post.
Moreover, your absurd theory of athiest "hatred" is both completely unfounded and a red herring from your own fevered imagination.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 08:37 PM -
Neurode: "Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits."
tigerbear: "There was no reference to Tell el-Kheleifeh in this statement and no specification of a particular instance of his explanatory framework overreaching itself. It is a generalist point about his work, and thus a concession."
You're not paying attention, are you, tigerbear? Or perhaps the English language simply isn't your strong suit, or perhaps you erroneously think you're being clever. "Testing (or stretching) the envelope well beyond its limits" requires only a single instance of testing. To convey more than that, one would say (e.g.) "*always* testing the envelope well beyond its limits".
To boldly generalize from the single granted instance in this entire dialogue, namely, Tell el-Kheleifeh, to "always", or indeed, to anything more than the single instance in question, is really, so to speak, "stretching the envelope". (See how it only took you a single instance of stretching to do that, even after I'd carefully informed you that your former statement about "conceding all points" was inaccurate?)
Such flagrant abuses of the English language hardly imply that your criticisms are to be taken seriously, particularly after you were politely asked not to insert your half-baked opinions or impressions into other people's mouths without their permission. Consequently, I don't take them seriously, and neither does anyone else with half a brain.
But for future reference, if you want to make general statements that you can be sure of, make them for yourself. Leave me and others out of it.#: Posted by on 12/26 at 08:54 PM -
Brent,
Tell me what I have said that is hateful. You're violating a law of science: back up everything you say with quotes and source material. I haven't said anything that is hateful, although some of you guys have said things such as this:
PZ: "Time to cancel your National Geographic subscriptions, everyone" [because NG covered something religious. How dare they?]
As for this:
Moreover, your absurd theory of athiest “hatred” is both completely unfounded and a red herring from your own fevered imagination.
Perhaps you should see PZ's post about a cathedral in New York City, which he says he had a "visceral revulsion" to, that he felt "nothing but contempt" about, is "wicked," and part of a "rotting heart of evil" in New York City (I guess he likes dualistic religious doctrines). -
"What a bunch of ideological, irrational, hatred-filled dumbasses you guys are."
Did you already forget you had written it? I would add that your suggestion that we might be the sort of people who fantasize about mass murder is also pretty hateful but perhaps that does not count as such in your definition.
Moreover your summary of pz's original post again comes more from your own imagination than anything stated in the post. It has nothing to do with whether National Geographic "covered something religious" as you put it. It is that they discuss religion as if it is the same as science. The fact that you equate his offense at this and his criticism of this as "hatred" tells us a great deal more about your preconceptions than it does about the debate at hand.
As for PZ's separate post about the cathedral, there might be something more to argue about there but that would really be something to address with PZ as opposed to the open class of "you athiests."
Brent#: Posted by on 12/26 at 09:36 PM -
Brent: "It is that they discuss religion as if it is the same as science."
Brent, can you prove that the legend of Noah is purely a religious fable with no basis whatsoever in fact, despite its prominent mention in an ancient text known to contain a great deal of factual reportage (irrespective of whether or not it also contains some amount of pure religious mythology)?
In case you don't know the answer, here it is: No, you cannot. Not now, and not ever. Due to its salient mention in the Old Testament, the Noah story is forever in play as an archaeological potential. Since it may or may not have been partially distorted or allegorized, the story is nearly impervious to contrary geological or hydrological evidence.
You say that National Geographic is wrong for recognizing this. But that's probably not the way the vast majority of people would see it. The vast majority would probably see your viewpoint as prejudicial and unpleasantly suggestive of religious bigotry.
Even if the Noah story could somehow be disproven once and for all (and it cannot), National Geographic would have every right to fulfill its journalistic mission by reporting on any and all archaeological expeditions undertaken for purportedly scientific purposes (without necessarily endorsing their scientific credibility).
In pz's original post, there is a link to the article against which he is ranting. Nowhere in this article is it stated that Noah's Ark exists, nor even that it is likely to be found on the top of Mount Ararat or for that matter anywhere else.
Consequently, National Geographic is not "lying to children". Unfortunately, this is what pz has angrily accused them of doing. And because pz's accusation is both serious and false, he needs to apologize.
Do you understand this?#: Posted by on 12/26 at 10:16 PM -
Neurode and Arcane:
The alleged "ark site" on Ararat is at approximately 15,000 feet above current sea level. For a boat to land in that spot as waters receded would require the ocean(s) contain more than 560 million cubic miles more water than they do now.
So if this is actual, defensible science, where did that water go?#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/26 at 11:36 PM -
And the story of the Flood in Genesis is told on a strong backdrop of other Mesopotamian flood legends and stories, notably the Epic of Gilgamesh. If some hypothetical archaeologist were to plan their assault on the digs using the Books of Moses as their guide, shouldn't they accept and admit the guidance of other story sources, comparable in age and originating in the very same region, with peoples closely allied in heritage to the holders of the Books of Moses?
If such a hypothetical archaeologist did indeed not use these additional sources, then they could rightly be accused of sampling bias. And apologies in their support could not rightly and properly claim religious texts were merely to be used as the basis for exploration. It was one particular religious text.
Incidently, much more about this stuff can be learnt in two books by Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (ISBN 0-8052-0253-6) and Exploring Exodus (ISBN 0-8052-1063-6), both available at amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=NAHUM M. SARNA).#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/26 at 11:58 PM -
It is permissible, of course, to doubt that Noah's Ark would be found atop Mount Ararat even if it existed.
However, in this particular case, the would-be expeditioners were reportedly galvanized by a satellite image that bears interpretation as some sort of large man-made artifact (which would be of possible scientific interest no matter what it was). Given that allowances must always be made for imponderables and improbables (e.g. sudden land elevations due to unknown geological mechanisms, piece-by-piece transport of the Ark to high ground, the possibility that the Ark is a metaphor for some more permanent structure where Noah and an assortment of sure-footed animals sequestered themselves against the coming high water, etc.), it is not inconceivable that some highly motivated group of scientists might consider it worth a look.
But again, regardless of such considerations, the central issue is whether National Geographic was necessarily "lying to children" by reporting on such an expedition, or by failing to unleash a scathing pz-approved torrent of antireligious bigotry in their Children's Edition. In fact, the article itself makes it clear that they were not lying in any way, but merely engaging in responsible routine reportage of a proposed archaeological investigation of the satellite image. Therefore, it is a natural and indisputable fact that confirmed antireligious bigot pz owes them a humble apology.
Why try to defend the indefensible? The next move, or failure to move, has to be pz's own.#: Posted by on 12/27 at 10:28 AM -
Why try to defend the indefensible?
Interesting question, that.
If I thought PZ had gone overboard in his description - and I emphatically do not - I would call his imagined transgression worth it because of the amusing petulant whining it has provoked from fundies stamping their little feet in indignation.
Demanding an apology be delivered to NatGeo? You've gotta be kidding. A magazine editor myself, I can assure you that we need no defense from the likes of you against the likes of PZ. Were it not for people like PZ, people like you would be forcing us to print your dogmatic religious garbage.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/27 at 11:21 AM -
Excuse me, but you know nothing about me. And by your asinine continued defense of an inexcusable accusation, any reasonable party knows that your opinion on virtually any subject, plus a dime, leaves you nine dimes short of a dollar. So why don't you take your obscure little e-zine, whatever that happens to be, and retire to the shadows?
As I say, pz owes an apology, and nobody but an idiot could possibly doubt it.#: Posted by on 12/27 at 11:37 AM -
This idiot doubts it, Neurode.
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 12/27 at 11:43 AM
-
Unfortunately, even after I spotted him a dime, that still leaves pz and his blog groupies nine dimes short of a dollar. However, am I to assume that you too accuse National Geographic of "lying to children"?
Don't waffle, a simple yes or no will do.#: Posted by
