Sat Jun 15 09:16:42 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jun 15 09:16:42 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA18263; Sat, 15 Jun 1996 09:14:03 -0400
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 08:10 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1748

On  Fri, 14 Jun 1996, wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) wrote, in part:

>
>To my way of thinking, an example "proves" a lot more than rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. I have no objections to Peterson's
examples, but this statement is "not only wrong but wrong-headed."

You can prove *anything* using examples. You can find a man who says a
Hindu mystic "cured" him of his cancer by telling him to stand on his
head for a week. You can find materials that get colder when exposed
to heat. You can even find examples of Westcott & Hort agreeing with
Codex Bezae against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (an infamous list of
nine, in fact...).

The *only* basis for scientific study is statistical. Examples serve to
*illustrate* rules, not to define them.

I'll give you a case in point. (I'd call it an example, but it might
confuse things.)

Climb to the top of a building and drop a rock and a feather. See which
one falls to the ground first. The rock, right?

On the face of it, this seems to violate the law of universal gravitation.
But nobody questions gravitation. Why? Because Galileo gathered the
data in *hundreds* of experiments, rolling balls down inclined planes.
Then Newton took this data, organized it, and derived a law. And that
law *works* -- despite a few oddities like feathers being held up by
air pressure.

So please, don't cite examples to prove anything. Unless it's statistical,
it's not science, it's folklore.

And if you don't think science matters in this field, then what are
you doing typing at a computer rather than writing on linen paper
with a quill pen (or, more likely, out on your land looking at the
rear ends of a couple of oxen as you plow your field...)? :-)

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back