Re: DH Idiocy 1

In article <1149814188.258097.148690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Shlomo Argamon <argamon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dan Kimmel wrote:
"Lisa" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149802804.202741.180820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

...................

Indeed - and "deriving meaning from the text" using the tools of DH is
precisely what R'Dr Mordechai Breuer does. On the other hand, there is
a great difference between using a new critical tool for litcrit or
hermeneutics, and using it to make declarations about matters of
empirical fact. I think that few, if any, of the "anti-DH" folks in
this thread would object if the only claim that DH-ers were making was
that "DH methods lend some insight into the meaning of the text". But
the claim is that DH work proves (or demonstrates, or shows) that the
Torah was redacted from some set of previously existing documents
written by people, perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps based on old
legends (or some combination of the above). The fact is that it does
nothing of the kind.

As it happens, today I attended the first day of a 2-day workshop on
text-based authorship attribution, and I spent the day discussing the
state of the art in this field with top linguistics, literary scholars,
statisticians, and computer scientists working in this area. The clear
and entirely undisputed consensus view was that nothing even
approaching an empirically validated theory of text generation and
construction exists, which could be used to derive methods for
comparing the authorship properties of two texts. That is, there is NO
WAY that DH-type methods (or any other methods currently known) could
possible conclude, based on internal textual evidence, that the Torah
was edited together from multiple source documents. This is ENTIRELY
separate from the issue of Divine authorship, note.

-Shlomo-

What is being stated is that there are rarely TOOLS for doing
this. However, Mosteller and Wallace did find a way of deducing
the authorship of several Federalist Papers whose authors were
not known, and who had very similar styles of writing.

We still do not have reasonable tools for understanding speech
or handwriting. We do not have tools for recognizing the type
of diseases on has, or coming up with reasonable treatments in
many cases. But individuals can do these things.

The major problem is not that of finding differences, but the
differences in pieces of text made by one author, and the
differences between that and other authors. Tell me, did any
of the statisticians discuss using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test?
I have tried it on some samples, and it works too well, rejecting
the hypothesis that they had the same author even if they did.

I have looked at the problem, and I would like to know what was
tried. I suspect that it was too simplistic.

Anyhow, people can distinguish authors even when machines cannot.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.

Relevant Pages

  • The ethics of authorship and the systematic omission of statisticians
    ... Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians ... Elizabeth Wager is a publications consultant, Princes Risborough, ... issued guidance on who qualifies for authorship, ... A New Study on Ghost Authors ...
    (sci.stat.edu)
  • Re: DH Idiocy 1
    ... comparing the authorship properties of two texts. ... of the statisticians discuss using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test? ... but likely not for the reasons that you do. ... clear evidentiary standards. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)