--- 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
model.

>
>

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
way.

>
>

It's possible that the

> person in question may have talked

to several people in the community
and

> asked them why they used Mayan

numerals. If so, and if he got
answers

> along the line that it attracted

the interest of tourists, then I'd
say

> that the hypothesis got some

confirmation.

>
>

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
what

> basis the comment was made. I

think it's unfair to jump to the
conclusion

> 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
empathise.

>

R