--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com,
Peter_Constable@... wrote:
> On 01/18/2003 09:35:05 AM "etaonsh
<rcom@... wrote:
> >An archaeologist can describe an
attempt to revive Mayan numerals as
> >tourism-inspired. However, he
cannot prove it
> In science, a hypothesis cannot
ever be proven;
Within certain bounds. But not, I
suspect, in this instance.
it can be disproved by
> empirical evidence, or
"confirmed", i.e. empirical evidence
that follows
> the predictions of the model
strengthens our confidence in the
But sometimes, as here, it's a case
of a 'simple' statement rather than
a 'model.'
> >The 'tourism-inspired'
allegation, apart from being
> >unproven/unprovable, is unfair
and highly 'loaded.'
> That statement is unfair and
highly 'loaded'.
Agreed, but on the basis that any
indication of a 'loaded statement'
will, of necessity, itself be
loaded; and 'unfair,' on the basis,
referred to earlier, that tourism is
not necessarily stigmatised in that
It's possible that the
> person in question may have talked
to several people in the community
> asked them why they used Mayan
numerals. If so, and if he got
> along the line that it attracted
the interest of tourists, then I'd
> that the hypothesis got some
I'm not so sure. There is the
saying, 'Ask a silly question...'
Of course, it may have been
> nothing more than a guess on his
part. The point it, we don't know on
> basis the comment was made. I
think it's unfair to jump to the
> that the comment had nothing to
support it.
Agreed, I didn't, and it seems quite
a reaonable comment as part of a
broader attempt to answer the
question, 'Why revive an old native
number system?' We can all see what
the local people were doing, and
some (if not all) of us can no doubt