LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-20-2022, 10:52 AM   #76
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,283

Rep: Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022

Agreed, sundialsvcs, and as I understand it that is a major problem with documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls due to the nature of the earliest attempts at written language trying to translate sound to text. This would be even more of a problem with pitch related languages in which the same words have very different meanings dependent on pitch.

On another front, there is how we hear. I saw a show about language in which an Inuit lady who also spoke quite good English spoke 2 entirely different words and my "English" ears and brain could detect zero difference. We know this isn't a physical constraint from witnessing the difference in speech between some immigrants and their subsequent children. For example, Asian peoples who have a difficult time distinguishing "L"s and "R"s find that their children have no such difficulty. It's contextual training and a major issue in human communication... possibly ALL communication.

In an English Literature class we heard a recording by Peter Ustinov reciting Chaucer in the original Middle English. It was beautiful, even mesmerizing, like a strange but lovely song, but until I learned Middle English (which sadly I have all but forgotten) I couldn't understand any of it, save possibly one out of dozens of words. Even Hebrew scholars who have spent decades immersed in Ancient Hebrew, cannot fully grasp the meaning in ancient scrolls. Meaning can turn on a single word.

Last edited by enorbet; 06-20-2022 at 11:00 AM.
 
Old 06-20-2022, 12:24 PM   #77
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,823

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550
One of the most interesting computer projects I ever worked on was run by the Poet in Residence(!) at my University. He was studying spelling variations in printed copies of Shakespearean sonnets. (No, I was not one of the graduate-school schlebs who had to type them all in ... I was picked because I knew how to write parsing software in BASIC.)

In the days before dictionaries, people spelled things as they heard them. Thus, these printed books became a written record of differences in regional speech dialects throughout Europe at that time.

It was a very fun project, and I actually was listed as a resource on the final published academic paper.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-20-2022 at 12:26 PM.
 
Old 06-21-2022, 07:47 AM   #78
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, RPi OS, Mint & Android
Posts: 13,911

Rep: Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901Reputation: 1901
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
In the days before dictionaries, people spelled things as they heard them.
Yes, and English was mainly spoken in England. But England had been settled by so many differing groups spreading in from the South East that many earlier tribes or settlers got pushed about.That gave you wildly different local accents throughout the country, and a wide range of spelling variants. So what we might spell as 'fife',(a musical instrument) I've seen spelled as 'fyffe.'
 
Old 06-21-2022, 10:46 AM   #79
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 15.0
Posts: 8,110
Blog Entries: 61

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Before standardisation of spelling came in (whenever that was?), people wrote as they spoke. If you read Canterbury Tales & Piers Plowman in the original Middle English, you'll see variations in spelling. Both were written about the same time, but in different parts of the country. And Chaucer was a bit more "refined" than Langland.
 
Old 06-21-2022, 11:28 PM   #80
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,283

Rep: Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
@enorbet, @business_kid:
Perhaps we should look at "mythology" as being yet another legitimate form of inquiry, for use when "the philosophy of science" has reached its outer limits. In any case, we should regard mythology as legitimate because humans have been practicing it literally for as long as we know. Were all of these human beings "ignorant?" I don't think so.
I forgot to respond to this detail. I see no justification for continuing any conclusion just because it was practiced for a long time. After all Slavery was practiced since prehistoric times. That alone isn't a raison d'etre. "Ignorant" is exactly what people in the past were. It is not the equivalent of "stupid". No matter how intelligent one is we are all ignorant of far more than we know. There is no shame in ignorance since none of us knows or even CAN know everything. The only shame is continuing to act in ignorance after we know better, after objective evidence brings "sacred cows" into question.
 
Old 06-22-2022, 09:26 AM   #81
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, VSIDo, tinycore, Q4OS,Manjaro
Posts: 4,385

Rep: Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I forgot to respond to this detail. I see no justification for continuing any conclusion just because it was practiced for a long time. After all Slavery was practiced since prehistoric times. That alone isn't a raison d'etre. "Ignorant" is exactly what people in the past were. It is not the equivalent of "stupid". No matter how intelligent one is we are all ignorant of far more than we know. There is no shame in ignorance since none of us knows or even CAN know everything. The only shame is continuing to act in ignorance after we know better, after objective evidence brings "sacred cows" into question.
To focus your point, the time when the accumulated human knowledge reached the point of growing faster than a human could learn was in the late 1800s. We are all ignorant, but only the well educated have a chance to realize HOW ignorant. The better the education the more myth is recognized and replaced by facts, however incomplete. It is never a perfect or complete process, but a terribly important one.
 
Old 06-25-2022, 12:38 PM   #82
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,283

Rep: Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022
BTW sundialsvcs, I'd like to thank you for creating this thread. I already subscribe to "Hardcore History" on YouTube which mixes a wee bit of Myth with verified history to powerful effect and a wealth of information in a very human context, but searching around because of your thread I stumbled across a much more Myth oriented channel that is just fascinating. It traces human stories back as far as 40,000 years ago and shows how they progressed and evolved through culture mixing. It's quite stimulating.

Anyone interested can start here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChh...z8eBJECy4d5uSQ
 
Old 06-27-2022, 05:51 PM   #83
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,823

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550
Why, thank you ...

One thing that we should certainly remember about "myth," especially in the days when most of the people in a nation were not literate, is that it was an important way to preserve national identity and stories. There was literally no way for "History" to be preserved until literacy became commonplace, except by the laborious verbal transcription of ... myths(!) ... from father to son or daughter.

And even then, a great many of the things that were written were ... myths.

It is very important to bear in mind that the term, "myth," does not actually equate to its commonly-held modern implication of "falsehood."

Likewise, "ignorance." Human "knowledge" is actually a tremendously diverse thing, even today.

There is nothing "false," therefore nothing "inferior," about a myth. It is a critical and legitimate(!) component of human history which has, indeed, shaped history. (And, to this day, it continues to do so.)

P.S. To reiterate my point: "Science" is a parallel track." Science, myth, philosophy, religion ... they are all equally legitimate, and not in contest with one another. (Even though they do not intersect. Indeed, precisely because(!) they do not intersect!)

"In diversity there is strength."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-27-2022 at 05:58 PM.
 
Old 06-27-2022, 11:17 PM   #84
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,283

Rep: Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022Reputation: 4022
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Why, thank you ...

One thing that we should certainly remember about "myth," especially in the days when most of the people in a nation were not literate, is that it was an important way to preserve national identity and stories. There was literally no way for "History" to be preserved until literacy became commonplace, except by the laborious verbal transcription of ... myths(!) ... from father to son or daughter.

And even then, a great many of the things that were written were ... myths.

It is very important to bear in mind that the term, "myth," does not actually equate to its commonly-held modern implication of "falsehood."

Likewise, "ignorance." Human "knowledge" is actually a tremendously diverse thing, even today.

There is nothing "false," therefore nothing "inferior," about a myth. It is a critical and legitimate(!) component of human history which has, indeed, shaped history. (And, to this day, it continues to do so.)

P.S. To reiterate my point: "Science" is a parallel track." Science, myth, philosophy, religion ... they are all equally legitimate, and not in contest with one another. (emphasis by enorbet) (Even though they do not intersect. Indeed, precisely because(!) they do not intersect!)

"In diversity there is strength."
Firstly, you're welcome but I'd like to posit they are NOT equally legitimate because of an extremely important difference. Myth, Philosophy and Religion, and possibly especially ancient myth (the most common) are most often driven by superstition, agenda, and ignorance and by nature tend to assume the conclusion in the premise... IOW do not follow the error correcting rules of Logic.

Superstition by it's very nature assumes the supernatural which does not exist. If it can exist in Nature, it is natural. Philosophy at best is an hypothesis, as yet untested and not yet subjected to the scrutiny of dissent, falsification, and more observation. Philosophy tends to be "cutting edge" at the time not having enough evidence to yet be a theory. Religion is most like Superstition as they both assume supernatural forces and entities not yet in evidence. Much of ancient history was written with an agenda to glorify divine right autocrats, a superstition in itself.

One has only to look around in 2022 to see that almost NONE of the things that make human lives survival more assured, easier, and more pleasant, are due to Myth, Philosophy, and Religion. If we look deeper into knowledge of Nature, that percentage rises to 100%. Not only is that true but it is also true that more benefit in both areas comes from those that adhere more closely to Reason and less closely to superstition. The glaring example is Philosophy which has helped power the trend to Human Rights evident in the places most humans would prefer to live.

Here's the kicker. These methods of understanding metaphysics, epistemology, etc. run along a timeline. The further back in time we look, the less we understood and the more important first philosophy then religion and myth were (looking in reverse order, of course). As we progress through time from Past to Present, learning ever more of what is verifiably real, the less valuable each became relative to Science due to the provable success of Logic, Reason, the Scientific Method. It can be said that "came to a head" during the Renaisance, Reformation and The Age of Enlightenment.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion were it not for the triumph of Reason.
 
Old 06-28-2022, 08:59 AM   #85
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,823

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550
@enorbet: While I acknowledge the importance of Science, and the Age of Reason, I do not feel the need to dismiss the others in the way that you seem willing to do. As for me, I don't need to "pick a winner." I think that we have at least four "lanes," and that each one of them(!) might have something important to tell us that we should pay attention to. Although three of them are "not 'science,'" that does not make them unimportant or irrelevant.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-28-2022 at 09:01 AM.
 
Old 06-28-2022, 10:48 AM   #86
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, VSIDo, tinycore, Q4OS,Manjaro
Posts: 4,385

Rep: Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
@enorbet: While I acknowledge the importance of Science, and the Age of Reason, I do not feel the need to dismiss the others in the way that you seem willing to do. As for me, I don't need to "pick a winner." I think that we have at least four "lanes," and that each one of them(!) might have something important to tell us that we should pay attention to. Although three of them are "not 'science,'" that does not make them unimportant or irrelevant.
And therein lies the real problem: that some people put equal weight on "stories" as they do on facts and science. Myth has value, and tells us things about our history, thinking, and creativity, but has nothing to do with the truth. Giving them equal weight is the kind of things that had a state attempt to legislate Pi as exactly 3.
 
Old 06-28-2022, 04:13 PM   #87
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,823

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550
@wpeckham: Apparently, "truth" means many different things to many different people. I do not agree with most of these people.
 
Old 06-28-2022, 09:30 PM   #88
mrmazda
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Location: USA
Distribution: openSUSE 24/7; Debian, Knoppix, Mageia, Fedora, others
Posts: 4,238
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440Reputation: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
a global flood is absolutely impossible
That's not supported by evidence analyzed without pre-conceived notion contra, or because the Bible says it happened, it couldn't have been so. Nobody can prove there was never an atmospheric ice or water layer sufficient to provide the required water volume, or that a sufficient water volume didn't or couldn't have catastrophically moved from below the earth's crust to its surface. There is no valid incontrovertible proof a worldwide flood didn't happen, much less that it could never happen, while there is pretty compelling proof otherwise, e.g.: abundant sea creature fossils on multiple mountaintops.

Why are catastrophic flood legends so widely spread among populations of the whole wide world if no such actually happened?

How could a river whose entry point is 4,000 feet below the canyon's top ever have produced the Grand Canyon, or any canyon?

How did full grown trees and mammals get buried at the poles if things weren't radically different many many moons ago?

Science has provided no un-laughable proof that a worldwide flood never happened, or never could have happened.
 
Old Yesterday, 09:15 AM   #89
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, VSIDo, tinycore, Q4OS,Manjaro
Posts: 4,385

Rep: Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163Reputation: 2163
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmazda View Post
That's not supported by evidence analyzed without pre-conceived notion contra, or because the Bible says it happened, it couldn't have been so. Nobody can prove there was never an atmospheric ice or water layer sufficient to provide the required water volume, or that a sufficient water volume didn't or couldn't have catastrophically moved from below the earth's crust to its surface. There is no valid incontrovertible proof a worldwide flood didn't happen, much less that it could never happen, while there is pretty compelling proof otherwise, e.g.: abundant sea creature fossils on multiple mountaintops.

Why are catastrophic flood legends so widely spread among populations of the whole wide world if no such actually happened?

How could a river whose entry point is 4,000 feet below the canyon's top ever have produced the Grand Canyon, or any canyon?

How did full grown trees and mammals get buried at the poles if things weren't radically different many many moons ago?

Science has provided no un-laughable proof that a worldwide flood never happened, or never could have happened.
No, but there is proof that no worldwide flood happened during the last few million years. As for the grand canyon, erosion and normal crustal movements explain that perfectly as you would know had you been paying attention in class! It is used as a classic example.
 
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM   #90
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,823

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550Reputation: 3550
But also, what did "a world-wide flood" actually mean to them?

Of course, they could not possibly have known at that time what "the world" was. They could only have known what "the world" was to them. Nevertheless, many contemporary civilizations simultaneously recorded "a catastrophic flood," involving stupendous amounts of water.

We actually do not need to link these accounts to "the entire planet" in order to say that they were "true." When we observe that multiple ancient civilizations told the same story, we need to pay attention.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; Yesterday at 02:06 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: All Politics are Tribal: The Myth of "One Citizen, One Vote" LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-02-2008 06:00 PM
Help With Java Problem Please"""""""""""" suemcholan Linux - Newbie 1 04-02-2008 06:02 PM
LXer: Linux Cluster Myth Buster: What Matters, What Does Not LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-06-2006 08:54 PM
Tiny Sofa 2.0 - I thought "halt", "reboot" were only root command ?? sorcerer Linux - Distributions 1 08-21-2004 03:28 PM
Java does "age" or "Age" matter when declaring an Int?? Laptop2250 Programming 3 10-13-2003 12:34 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration