Let us start out with some simple questions....
What do we teach, and what do we learn?
Teaching and learning are extensions of the field of knowledge.
To teach anything, we have to KNOW something.
But how do we know what we know?
And how much of what we know - or think we know - is really true?
state-of-the-art of "science" or "scholarship" is by no means fixed,
and in fact changes from year to year and decade to decade.
Many things thought to be "known"
are discarded over time by new knowledge.
What do we really know?
The maker of
LexiLine, a law school graduate,
has been arguing
for as long as he can remember
that the study of man's history
Too many things
in science and scholarship are taken for granted as facts based on
somebody's "say-so". Indeed, in archaeology, there is an unwritten rule
that for the first 10 years (!) only the finder of an artifact can
publish about it.
there is no guarantee that a finder is also competent to interpret
correctly what he or she has found, so this practice allows original
erroneous interpretations to
become fixed over time by default, later to be adopted as givens simply
the "say-so" of the original finders. It is a very strange practice
that leads to errors.
In the law,
"say-so" is called "hearsay",
and is not very good evidence.
say-so is often simply based on somebody else's say-so,
e.g. one professor quoting another professor, etc., etc.
That may please
the academics, but it leads to many serious errors.
views of scholars-- when traced to their origins -
are often no more than opinions, educated guesses or hypotheses
which simply become entrenched over time.
from the opinions of academia,
does the evidence really tell us
about ancient cultures and the history of civilization?
What does the probative evidence
actually tell us about man's past?
is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a stated thing.
anything other than probative evidence in not admissible in court.
Most of the
evidence relied on by mainstream historical research would be thrown
out of court without question as inadmissible, because that evidence
simply does not say what scholars say it does.
provides a good example of how scholars rely on non-probative evidence
to draw far-reaching conclusions which down the road are actually
probative evidence to be totally wrong.
The quote below
is taken from this author's LawPundit blog posting titled
Man's History is a question of EVIDENCE: Where was
Troy? Where did Paris take Helen of Troy? Greece & the
Origins of Writing in Western Civilization:
disciplines understand evidence the way that the law does. John F.
Hughes, Professor of Computer Science at Brown University, provides
us with the following anecdote about the way in which archaeologists
"In 2001, archaeologists discovered a
ship sunk in the middle of the Mediterranean, surrounded by amphorae.
From this they concluded that the ancient Greeks actually HAD sailed
offshore. What's remarkable was that until this discovery, they'd been
convinced that they DIDN'T. Why? Well, because they found all the
wrecks near shore. This ignores several important things: (1) Wrecks
tend to HAPPEN near shore -- that's where the rocks and shoreline are.
(2) Near shore was where they were looking for the wrecks. (3) The
written record documents many long sea voyages, but these were all
discounted as fanciful. (4) Crete is out of sight of the mainland, and
yet Greece traded with it. Makes you wanna smack them upside the head,
example mirrors faulty mainstream methods in many of the "soft
sciences", especially archaeology and attendant fields such as Biblical
Studies, Egyptology and Near Eastern Studies, all of which have led
mainstream scholarship to adopt many erroneous views of man's history.
The case of Biblical
Moses is a good example.
archaeological evidence has yet been found
for the current chronology
attached by mainstream scholars
to the life of Moses and the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt.
ZERO. Not a single pot.
This does not
seem to disturb mainstream scholars,
but it disturbs us,
especially because modern current events in the Middle East
are driven by prevailing historical judgments about the Jews.
judgments are false, demonstrably false.
either Moses is a character of fiction,
because he can not possibly have lived
in the era currently ascribed to him,
Moses must have lived at a different time
than currently assigned to him by mainstream scholarship
at a time when his existence is supported by archaeological probative
And if Moses
lived in a different age,
then the current mainstream history of the Middle East
and also the accepted history
of Pharaonic Egypt
is in large part simply terribly false.
historical problems are the focus of LexiLine.
There are many, many evidentiary problems
in historical research and chronology
and we draw our attention to these problems as we find them.
We are not out to push some particular view,
but we CAN identify the views that CAN NOT be correct,
regardless of what the correct answer may turn out to be.
Please note in
that our OWN views must be classified as "speculative"
since they do not enjoy the support of mainstream scholars
or academia in general --
who have not contradicted them, which would be hard to do.
that we point out in mainstream research
do actually exist.
EVIDENCE tells a different tale
than what is taught in the schools,
and a different tale than what is learned in the schools.
That is why we
call LexiLine a Renaissance in Learning.
There is of
course no guarantee
that OUR OWN views,
based on the probative evidence,
are necessarily more correct than mainstream dogma,
but the odds are GREATLY in our favor. Greatly.
reading of this website | Quick Index of
J.D., Stanford Law School, 1971,
owner and author of LexiLine.com