« The Veterinary Tablets from Ugarit and Scribal Training
Main
Goodbye Washoe »
October 30, 2007
In Which I Complain About "Proof" - Again
A recent article in the Pittsburg Post Gazette has inspired a flurry of renewed discussions of the Tel Zayit abecedary. If you're interested in those discussions, head over to Chris Heard's Higgaion blog or check out the several comments on the ANE -2 or the Biblical Studies list servers. What I want to talk about is the use of the word "proof" that comes up from time to time in this discussion. Paul Ash, and I'm not picking on Paul alone, contributed to the discussion. The following is part of Paul's comment on the Biblical Studies list server,
Discovering this stone with the alphabet on it does not, in any way, provide evidence that any of the biblical material was written at the "time of Solomon" or that any part of the Solomon account derives from any texts written at or near the time of Solomon. We still need proof for that. [emphasis added]
I almost agree with Paul's first sentence but not quite. I would recast his statement this in this way,
'Discovering this stone with the alphabet on it does not' materially increase the probability that any 'of the biblical material was written at the "time of Solomon" or that any part of the Solomon account derives from any texts written at or near the time of Solomon.'
It may slightly increase the probability that there was some level of literacy in the 10th century BCE. But this stone does not show a very high level of literacy, at least not, on the part of whoever wrote an abecedary on it.
But my real beef isn't with Paul's first sentence; its with his last sentence, "We still need proof for that." As I've said before, mathematicians and logicians have proofs. The rest of us have more or less compelling evidence for or against our theories and hypotheses. Proof implies a certainty that is just not available in these matters or frankly any other matters that cannot be reduced to mathematical formulae. Sometimes the evidence for an theory or hypothesis is so strong that we can, as a practical matter, dispense with probability language. The same is true when the evidence is extremely weak or nonexistent.
Just for the record, I think the evidence the any biblical material, at least in its final form, comes from the time of Solomon is weak; meaning of low probability. But it is not so weak that we can deny the possibility outright. It is so weak that we shouldn't build other historical or literary hypotheses on this idea nor should we give it any place of dominance in discussions of history or literature.
Posted by Duane Smith at October 30, 2007 4:00 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2304
Comments
I concur. Essentially it's a pattern I often see with people in conversations I've had where probability is mistaken for certainty. People probably do this because certainty is easier for the average brain to digest than a package of other simultaneous possibilities. That's perhaps why politicians use certainty in their campaigns far more than probability.
One answer takes up less space than five in the ol' medulla, afterall, and some people's brains just can't handle it all. In a nutshell, it's "cognitive over-efficiency" by eliminating what are deemed excess probabilities even when it's still logically necessary to keep them in mind.
Posted by: Glen Gordon at November 1, 2007 12:53 PM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.