|
Post by paul on Nov 30, 2011 12:36:49 GMT 9.5
Occam's Razor is about choosing between theories that are equally good at explaining the data. In this area however it is normal to delete the difficult data before applying the razor.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 30, 2011 13:04:18 GMT 9.5
More like chipping away the superfluities. ;D
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 30, 2011 15:06:47 GMT 9.5
It is more to the point of not going off into flights of fancy. In any theory that should be at least some aspects that can be proven. In the case of Sitchin's gods from space idea there is nothing but gross speculation. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with choosing between theories that are "equally good at explaining data." It has to do with logically and reasonably shying away from grandiose un-supported proclamations that offer nothing for evidence.
So there is an old Hindu book. Now what? Any evidence or is is only something that can be more easily explained by approaching it as an old text that might well be fanciful. I hope that in a million years someone doesn't go digging and start a Luke Skywalker religion based upon DVDs found in rubble.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 30, 2011 15:42:33 GMT 9.5
Oddly enough contemporaneous eye witness accounts are perhaps the most valued of legal evidence but the least valued of ancient history.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 30, 2011 16:30:18 GMT 9.5
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I have pointed you before to sitchiniswrong.com the man was no expert in Sumerian. He misinterpreted things to support his theory. Why can't mythology be simply mythology?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 30, 2011 17:04:33 GMT 9.5
Your rejection would look stronger if it dealt with primary sources
And there are many nations & races beyond Sumerian
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Nov 30, 2011 17:10:23 GMT 9.5
- Childress (2000) mentions the Kebra Negast, the spiritual guide of the Ethiopians, which says that Solomon had a flying vehicle; also that there are hilltops in Pakistan and Iran where Solomon is believed to have landed. Isnt there also a legend that the son of solomon/king/God? of the Ethiopians will return and retrieve a ring of wisdom (the seal of solomon)? from the inner of Mt Kilimanajaro [tanzania], restoring Ethopia to its rightful place in the world. Just imagine how would the wider masonic world cope if such a thing were to transpire and Solomons decendant was to reincarnate and do this? Would he be found hanging under Blackfriars bridge with masonic penalties applied, yet dying of "natural causes" or would Maat be returned to this planet? Would the masonic world even care? Makes you think. I always think that Hollywood did a good conceptual job here with "Stargate".
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 30, 2011 22:30:13 GMT 9.5
Just imagine how would the wider masonic world cope if such a thing were to transpire and Solomons decendant was to reincarnate and do this? Would he be found hanging under Blackfriars bridge with masonic penalties applied, yet dying of "natural causes"]/b]; or would Maat be returned to this planet? Would the masonic world even care?
Oh come on! Bringing the P2 konspiracy into this? Really?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 30, 2011 23:32:59 GMT 9.5
Oddly enough contemporaneous eye witness accounts are perhaps the most valued of legal evidence but the least valued of ancient history. You are right in my wheelhouse on this one. No eye witness evidence is ot the most valued of legal evidence. Hard physical evidence, DNA and other such evidence is far more reliable and valued than eye witness evidence. There are a number of reasons why eye witness evidence is unreliable to say the best about it. That being the case it makes sense that it would be the least valued in other areas as well. Much like everything else, hard evidence is stronger than self-report data. Eye witnesses are like a cherry on a sundae. It is great but you gotta have the sundae to make it worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Dec 1, 2011 2:08:28 GMT 9.5
Your rejection would look stronger if it dealt with primary sources And your acceptance would be stronger if it were supported by hard evidence instead of mythology. And they all have their origin mythologies, which say they came from the sky. Common theme, proves nothing other than mankind wishes to believe it so.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 1, 2011 4:55:39 GMT 9.5
And they all have their origin mythologies, which say they came from the sky. And now we know that humans did not come from the sky - unless they previously came from Earth. What dunderheads our ancient ancestors must have been. No wonder they lost the genuine secrets.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 1, 2011 5:06:30 GMT 9.5
.. Hard physical evidence, DNA and other such evidence is far more reliable and valued than eye witness evidence. ... A local Theosophist was convicted of murder. The only evidence to link him to the site was DNA - some hairs. Some of us, knowing him, wondered what alternative means there might be for his hair to arrive on site. Still, the DNA evidence was damning. Personally I would have much preferred an eye witness. At least there would have been cross examination.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 1, 2011 6:38:42 GMT 9.5
A jury is free to reject the physical. Not knowing the particulars of the case I will decline to comment on it directly. As you said, you can't cross-examine DNA evidence. You can however cross-examine those that collected the evidence, examine the chain of custody, and find some other way that would have put his DNA at the scene of the crime. I would be surprised, not shocked, if the defense attorney did not look at those options and if he did not pursue those he must have had a reason. If you have not heard about the Innocence Project you should give them a look sometime. www.innocenceproject.org From their hard and dedicated work more than 270 people have been released from prison. These unfortunate people were convicted and incarcerated, in some cases for decades, and their release came from DNA evidence. Many (approximately 75%) were convicted on eye-witness evidence alone. Others were convicted because of false confessions or prosecutorial misconduct. Since justice is one of those very important matters (four cardinal virtues) to Masons you would think that more Masons would be interested in supporting this effort. As I mentioned above, eyewitness identification and reliability are in my wheelhouse. It is a key line of research that I am engaged in, and there is a wealth of empirical research that clearly shows that eyewitness evidence is unreliable in the extreme. In any case, eyewitness evidence is unreliable. Alleged eyewitness evidence and/or eyewitness evidence translated again and again, and from second or third hand stories is vastly less reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Dec 1, 2011 8:49:57 GMT 9.5
And they all have their origin mythologies, which say they came from the sky. And now we know that humans did not come from the sky - unless they previously came from Earth. What dunderheads our ancient ancestors must have been. No wonder they lost the genuine secrets. I take it this is a sarcasm?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 1, 2011 8:54:55 GMT 9.5
Perhaps the genuine secrets include the origin and destiny of man.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 1, 2011 9:35:13 GMT 9.5
Perhaps the term "genuine secrets" does not refer to the origin and destiny of man. Equally plausible with the level of evidence permitted.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 1, 2011 10:01:16 GMT 9.5
Perhaps Masonry has nothing to contribute to that most fundamental human question: Why?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 1, 2011 10:28:13 GMT 9.5
Maybe Masonry is being misused?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 1, 2011 10:31:12 GMT 9.5
That has arguably been the case for some centuries. Hence its problem with genuine secrets. Surely a search party should have been sent out.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Dec 1, 2011 10:55:11 GMT 9.5
Maybe it has been that way from the beginning or it is a relatively recent phenomenon stemming from new age ideas hoping that Masonry was something that it was not.
|
|