MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
No Appeal to the Hypothetical (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No Appeal to the Hypothetical

Another principle of AE is that we do not allow theories to depend on variables that have been deduced solely for the purpose of empowering the theory (I maintain that this is a flaw in Mick's Megalithic Inc. hypothesis, which supposes the existence of an ancient organization for which the only evidence is the theory for which it is needed). We are to construct new theories only using known variables--well established data points attested to by independent observations.

The classic example of violation of this rule is plate tectonic theory, which posits the existence of "friction" from "convection currents" in a subterranean "magma layer" upon which float continental "plates," without ever having establishing that such a magma layer exists, much less that it is characterized by convection currents, or that these are of sufficient influence to move, by way of friction, plates that were never before known to exist.

To my surprise, I have discovered that this principle too existed before AE. Bertrand Russel wrote;
Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

we do not allow theories to depend on variables that have been deduced solely for the purpose of empowering the theory

This is entirely correct and all such theories should be mercilessly assaulted with hobnailed boots at all times

(I maintain that this is a flaw in Mick's Megalithic Inc. hypothesis, which supposes the existence of an ancient organization for which the only evidence is the theory for which it is needed)

Except in the case of a brand new theory which only came into existence because the theorist, faced with apparently overwhelming anomalies in the standard account, was obliged to come up with something, anything, that made better sense. The boots in such a case should be employed with discrimination.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think we have a known organization that makes a far better candidate than Megalithia Inc. This organization has all the same needs as would the hypothetical one you've invented.

That organization?

The Military.

The Roman Military (but what exactly "Roman" means here is up for grabs) that conquered Europe, created a transport system by which to manage their supply lines. The system was maintained by retired (Pensioned) soldiers who set up legion halls (Monastic Orders) and trained the Hermits who were paid to remain on station.

Later, the military supply lines were chartered to civilians for trade usage for a share in the profits. Ultimately, this reversed the relationship between the military and the civilian population with the military coming to serve as defenders of the now civilian trade networks.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Roman military may well have taken advantage of the routes used by Megalithic traders, they'd have been stupid not to -- but, as we described in some detail, Megalithic trade routes were sea-based.

You can still see Megalithic sites on or within sight of the coast despite crumbling cliffs, neglect, general erosion and whatnot. Some of them survived even Cromwell because of their usefulness to sailors.

The Roman military did not as far as I know control long distance sea-routes. Not to start with.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
The Roman military did not as far as I know control long distance sea-routes. Not to start with.


A military without a navy? Really. That's going to win.

A military without capacity for long distance supply? Which would--by definition--require use of the sea (which you build a navy to guard). Not going to survive.

Frankly. The rules of the game forbid you to invent an organization when a perfectly adequate one already exists---one that needs the very supply lines you have identified.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sure, but who do you imagine got tin from Cornwall to practically everywhere? Tin is an essential component of bronze. Without bronze, there's no Bronze Age.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The State.

The State procured the tin. Not some private organization selling to the highest bidder. The State--i.e. the Military--procured the Tin and manufactured armaments as part of the military industrial complex--then distributed those armaments to soldiers on every frontier.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Imperial Spain continued the same operations in America.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:


The Military.

The Roman Military (but what exactly "Roman" means here is up for grabs) that conquered Europe, created a transport system by which to manage their supply lines. The system was maintained by retired (Pensioned) soldiers who set up legion halls (Monastic Orders) and trained the Hermits who were paid to remain on station.

Later, the military supply lines were chartered to civilians for trade usage for a share in the profits. Ultimately, this reversed the relationship between the military and the civilian population with the military coming to serve as defenders of the now civilian trade networks.


Excellent, so the cult of St Martin slowly replaces Mars as the networks becomes more civilian........



wiki wrote:
St. Martin of Tours (Latin: Sanctus Martinus Turonensis; 316 or 336 – 8 November 397) was Bishop of Tours, whose shrine in France became a famous stopping-point for pilgrims on the road to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. He has become one of the most familiar and recognizable Christian saints. As he was born in what is now Szombathely, Hungary, spent much of his childhood in Pavia, Italy, and lived most of his adult life in France, he is considered a spiritual bridge across Europe.[1]

His life was recorded by a contemporary, the hagiographer Sulpicius Severus. Some of the accounts of his travels may have been interpolated into his vita to validate early sites of his cult. He is best known for the account of his using his military sword to cut his cloak in two, to give half to a beggar clad only in rags in the depth of winter. Conscripted as a soldier into the Roman army, he found the duty incompatible with the Christian faith he had adopted and became an early conscientious objector.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
The Roman military may well have taken advantage of the routes used by Megalithic traders, they'd have been stupid not to -- but, as we described in some detail, Megalithic trade routes were sea-based.


Yes they were.

Hatty wrote:
You can still see Megalithic sites on or within sight of the coast despite crumbling cliffs, neglect, general erosion and whatnot. Some of them survived even Cromwell because of their usefulness to sailors..

Maybe these crumbling cliffs are not a coincidence. They do look like quarries. In fact they are natural ports/quarries, as the ancients developed (using what was available) the best sea and road networks. They took a lot of stone direct from beaches to construct ancient roads.


Hatty wrote:
The Roman military did not as far as I know control long distance sea-routes. Not to start with


I dont get this, the Romans would understand the significance of controlling sea routes. In fact they had to control them. The ancients knew that any really heavy stuff had to be moved by water transport, so for the Romans to build on the existing track/road network, which they did, they had to use these water networks to transport the huge amount of stone needed to undertake this task. These newer roads were then used for transport of people animals and light stuff, as they always were.

BTW I cant see that Roman roads would be any more efficient than what was already in existence in terms of carrying heavy stuff, the Romans really went for continuity, sure they had some poncier posh roads (not better ones.) that required a lot of additional maintenance. Even when a Roman road was built they would still have used sea/water for the heavier stuff .... Unless that is ...hmm....the ancients had railways...

Just my view......
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A point overlooked by some is that if you aim to have a straight road or track-way...... call it what you will.........

You swiftly run into problems, with carts carrying heavy loads and gradients.

So if your fancy is that Roman Roads built roads straight and true for military purposes, these same roads would be pretty useless for many military tasks including developing supply chains, as well as a lot of civilian trade stuff, which occurs in the Ish model later on.

Applied Epistemology Rule 88 (Two fat ladies)

The straighter the road the lighter the load.......
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No one has claimed the roads were straight. Inclines and obstacles force bends and turns.

The navigation lines are straight. The navigation lines pre-exist the roads.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is a point we emphasised in TME. No competent engineer would ever build a straight road and nobody has ever accused the Romans of not being competent civil engineers. A straight road must a) be pre-existing and b) designed with other things in mind ie navigation in a signless network.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

The Roman Military (but what exactly "Roman" means here is up for grabs) that conquered Europe, created a transport system by which to manage their supply lines. The system was maintained by retired (Pensioned) soldiers who set up legion halls (Monastic Orders) and trained the Hermits who were paid to remain on station.

Later, the military supply lines were chartered to civilians for trade usage for a share in the profits. Ultimately, this reversed the relationship between the military and the civilian population with the military coming to serve as defenders of the now civilian trade networks.


So what is this transport system (inland) to manage these supply lines if not the fabled Roman Roads....

And if the Roman Road isnt straighter, (as per orthodoxy) how do I recognize it from a native road? destination? quality of road?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We don't believe in "Roman Roads." You may have missed that memo.

I said, "Transport System." You read "roads."
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group