Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
- From: "Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Apr 2006 04:21:37 -0700
Alan Wostenberg wrote:
Augray wrote:
On 29 Mar 2006 09:00:59 -0800, "goodrich_ms@xxxxxxxxx"
<michael.goodrich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1143651659.699673.137280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
Further,
sometimes all you have is the artifact which you can continue to
investigate empirically, but no other info about prospective designers
that you can investigate first hand except perhaps historical reports
and other such forensic types of investigations/info.
Of course, this presupposes that it *is* an artifact in the first
place. Obviously, identification of an item as an "artifact" implies
knowledge of the purported designer's motives.
Sometimes we recognize in an artifact the designer's purpose.
More often we don't, and unless we can talk to the designer themselves
we can only conjecture on the designer's purpose. But what we *do*
recognise is evidence of how an object was manufactured.
But often
not. For example, what were the motives of the people who carved the
Moai on Easter Island? Nobody knows.
Because nobody knows *why* they were designed, shall we abandon design
inference, and conclude they were the product of natural forces such as
wind and erosion? No! LIfe's like that.
As I said, it's evidence for manufacture that matters. Intent or
purpose is a matter of conjecture, and leaves no physical evidence.
RF
.
- References:
- Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
- From: Alan Wostenberg
- Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
- Prev by Date: Re: Gaps in the fossil record.
- Next by Date: FYI
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
- Next by thread: Re: Simple ID questions, one more time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
