Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)
From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 07/18/04
- Next message: Mike Lyle: "Re: -ire words"
- Previous message: Raqueeb Hassan: "Re: When to use "affect" vs "effect" (lay vs lie, who vs whom, fewer vs less), etc."
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Reply: Herman Rubin: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Jul 2004 04:21:12 -0700
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40F9AE8A.1FAC@worldnet.att.net>...
> grapheus wrote:
> >
> > hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in message news:<cdbc64$miu@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...
> > > In article <337ae51f.0407140945.1157149a@posting.google.com>,
> > > grapheus <grapheus@www.com> wrote:
> > > >What is characteristic with DOGMATIC people is their VOLUNTARY
> > > >BLINDNESS. They never see the obvious if it contradicts their
> > > >favourite DOGMA.
> > >
> > > ..............
> > >
> > > >Alas for them, the mathematician Claude Shannon established a few
> > > >years ago a general formula saying that this WAS NOT TRUE, IF - a big
> > > >IF !- someone could start from the RIGHT hypotheses concerning
> > > >LANGUAGE and SCRIPT.
> > >
> > > That is a GIGANTIC if.
> >
> > Yes, indeed !..
> >
> > > How much success has there been in
> > > reading the Easter Island script? Here, we have a very
> > > good idea of the language, and even the idea of the texts
> > > is possibly known.
> > >
> > > How much has been done with the Mohenjo-Daro materials?
> > > There is far more than Phaistos. Or the rather large
> > > Voynich manuscript, clearly alphabetic? In fact, how
> > > well are we doing in reading Etruscan?
> >
> > Yes, but in the case of the Phaistos Disk, there have been two
> > favourable factors : a)- the language is a well known one b)- it
>
> The identity of the language is not known. If you assume it is an early
> form of Greek, and choose sign-values to make it come out as Greek, then
> you have argued in a circle.
a)- You are, as usual, MISREPRESENTATING the method that J.F. says he
followed : 1)- First he APPLIED STATISTICS to find the language 2)-
Then, he began the deciphering USING (Proto-Ionic) GREEK.
b)- Moreover you misunderstood what I wrote : when I said that the
language "was well known", I meant that "Proto-Ionic" is A LOT BETTER
KNOWN than the "supposed Luwian" used by Best & Woudhuizen, for
instance, not to talk about the "fanciful pidgin Greek" used by St.
Fischer !...
>
> > has been possible to guess that the script was acrophonic. A very big
> > advantage !..
>
> Since it's a guess, it's just as likely that it isn't acrophonic.
RIDICULOUS REMARK , showing your IGNORANCE of what a PROBABILITY is
!... Anyone may RECOGNIZE that YOU, with this STUPID REMARK, are
UNABLE TO DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES !...
Even if there are 99% chances for a script to be acrophonic, saying
that "it is acrophonic" is STILL A GUESS !... But ONLY AN IGNORANT
can state the BLATANT ERROR that "it is just as likely that it isn"'t"
!... This is CONFUSING 1% with 50% !!!!
>
> > Therefore, the correct decipherment does'n't look a "a miracle"...
>
> There is no way of knowing whether any suggested decipherment is
> "correct" until further texts using the script are found.
BALONEY !.. Such a statement is IGNORING the PROOFS !...
grapheus
> >
> > PS : My initial post was not about the decipherment itself, but about
> > the EVIDENCE. When one finds that an event, having a very small
> > probablity to happen, HAPPENS, he has to SUSPECT a coïncidence due to
> > chance... But when SEVERAL events of this kind HAPPEN, then only
> > DOGMATICS are despising enough the Calculus of Probabilities to say
> > that "there is no proof" !...
>
- Next message: Mike Lyle: "Re: -ire words"
- Previous message: Raqueeb Hassan: "Re: When to use "affect" vs "effect" (lay vs lie, who vs whom, fewer vs less), etc."
- In reply to: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Reply: Herman Rubin: "Re: Phaistos Disk : the DOGMATICS and the PROOFS (Was: The Phaistos Disk, side A, according to...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|