= Сообщение: 8785 из 12491 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Gerrit Kuehn 2:240/12 23 Jun 19 12:21:08 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 23 Jun 19 12:21:08 Тема : Pvt node with a CM flag, but without connect info. FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:240/12+5cc7611a На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+5d0f4a9a = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN1 ================================= ============================================================================== Hello Michiel!
23 Jun 19 11:09, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
GK>> You (deliberately?) did not quote the Troy example I gave...
MvdV> 1) You gave no source.
I was relying on your good educational background there. Wikipedia is a good starting place if you happen to know nothing about it.
MvdV> 2) That one myth can possibly be linked to the remnants of a city MvdV> does not means that ALL myth have some reality in them.
Which I never claimed. I said that your reversal reasoning saying "a myth is necessarily completely untrue" does not hold.
MvdV> 3) That there nay have been a "Troy city" does not mean that that MvdV> 1000 ships sailed to rescue Helen and that there was a trick with a MvdV> wooden gift horse.
Ruling them all out is pretty much impossible. You cannot conclude "it never happened and is completely made up" from what we know.
The historicity of the Troian War is still under discussion among scientists. The last major public debate around it happened on 2001/2002, but I don't think there is a unanimously accepted result yet. Field research is still ongoing.
--- No scholars now assume that the individual events of the tale (many of which involve divine intervention) are historical fact; however, no scholars claim that the story is entirely devoid of memories of Mycenaean times. ---
As I said many times: You have to separate the mythical part and the element of truth in such stories. Just claiming they're "all myth" is too way easy and probably wrong at least in the sense that it can hardly ever been proofed to have never happened at all.
MvdV> I would say that we can learn more about human behavior from modern MvdV> fiction. Learn about het earth? I don't think so.
The Bible contains many religious instructions that make a surprising lot of sense if you consider them under an ecological point of view.
MvdV> Whatever. I still say the story of Noah's Arc is myth.
It certainly is. I still say you cannot proof nothing like that ever happened. Especially the flood part has sensible explanations today. The ship is certainly a figure and cannot be taken literally.
GK>> But even that first needs to be recognizable to the GK>> humble theorist.
MvdV> Now that you mention Newton... His theory of classic mechanic and MvdV> gravity nicely explains why planets revolve in elliptic orbits MvdV> aroud the sun.
And is was exactly that theory that was required to allow the heliocentric system to be called the "simpler" explanation. However, it requires certain mathmatical tools, and insights in how the gravitational force can be understood.
MvdV> In the case of the "theory" of Noah's Arc, where is the MvdV> observation? What observation is there that needs this theory for MvdV> an explanation?
The reports we have from various cultures. As with the Troian horse and many other things. Simply saying "I cannot understand or proof it, so it must be all wrong" is too simple.
MvdV>>> I can see how such an event could lead to the story of the MvdV>>> great flood. But the ship?
GK>> Don't forget that the story of the ship is told by the survivors of GK>> the flood and their descendants.
MvdV> That assumes there WAS a ship and there WAS a flood and there were MvdV> survivos.
No, it just assumes that there was a large-scale catastrophy and there were survivors. The ship part may be what became of the actual tale of what happened over many centuries. Surviving needed an explanation. Survivors needed hope and reason to live on.
MvdV> If there WAS a large scale catastrophy. Where are the remnants of MvdV> that other than the story?
--- "Compilation of geophysical, geochronological, and geochemical evidence indicates a rapid Mediterranean-derived submergence of the Black Sea's shelf and subsequent substantial salinification in the early Holocene".
Please don't understand this as proof. It is a theory, and from a scientific point of view it is certainly "work in progress". OTOH, as long as scientists working on this come up with such results, I don't think that plain rejection is a sound option.
