hutch (04/06/83)
Just an inflammatory note to all you folks out there who like to imagine that you can "debunk" historical references: Bunkery and flim-flam are deliberate attempts to defraud. It is unlikely that any of the early writers mentioned in the recent controversy in this netgroup engaged in any kind of fabrication, however freely you like to impugn their motives. It is possible that they were misquoted or that certain things were attributed to them which are wrong. We have also observed this process going on in this very netgroup. Repeatedly. People are often mistaken about sources, or simply make wrong or foolish conclusions based on limited evidence or on incomplete understanding of the nature of the evidence. This is the sort of thing that gives rise to the "crackpots" like Velikovsky and Von Daniken (sp?) who may or may not be serious about their oddball propositions. These people deserve to be exposed as either frauds or as misled scholars, whichever is the case, by their contemporaries if possible. That way they can defend themselves. If you go into the question assuming that you have to "debunk" an historical writer, then you are not approaching the subject in any kind of a scientific manner. Despite the apparent attitude of some of the subscribers to "Skeptical Enquirer" it is not the case that skepticism requires incredulity, merely that you not believe absolutely in anything that is not proven in a conclusive fashion. Prejudicial approaches to any topic mean that you are NOT being skeptical, since you have decided beforehand what you are going to find. Hutch