As I pointed out above, scientists use regular, defined methodology (see below) because they deal with testable, repeatable facts. People who study the humanities, including historians and philologists, do not deal with testable, repeatable facts. They deal with human beings and their works and deeds, which are not logical, rational, repeatable or testable. They cannot be measured and calculated. They are not quantatative, so they are not science, and the scientific method is not particularly useful for them in gaining or assessing information.
That does not mean such studies are not rational or reasonable, however, nor did I at any point suggest it was. Nor did I suggest it was hocus-pocus.
Nor did I in any way suggest I do not like the humanities. In point of fact, I am a student and teacher of the humanities. (As a result of which, perhaps, comes my readiness to define and defend what they are and are not to people who are unclear on that fact.) I just want to point out here your process -- you are making an unsubstantiated claim based on incomplete evidence. This is neither good science nor humanities criticism.
I suppose this issue might be a quirk of the German language; maybe German Classicists /do/ call themselves scientists. But I've never seen Aby Warburg or or Fritz Saxl or Hermann Diel refer to themselves as /scientists/ before. None of the German-speaking researchers or writers I know (but I don't claim to have that wide a circle of German acquaintance) call themselves scientists. Certainly, none of my English-speaking colleagues do so.
It's niether intolerent nor prejudiced. It's a verifiable statement made by first-hand observation of a field I can claim reasonable familiarity with. If I said most historians are humans, would that be an intolerent prejudice, too*? I defy you to come up with one respected, peer-reviewed publication in any of the humanities to suggest the literal existence of Atlantis as it appears in Plato's Republic.
I would argue that it is clear that the Republic Plato discusses in that eponymous work is clearly ficitional. I'm not aware of the any poets actually being thrown out en masse from Athens at the very least. It is used a metaphor, as is Atlantis, which is presented as the anti-Republic. It may well be based on the distorted reflections of a real place, but using exactly your logic, because London is a real place used in the Harry Potter books, then everything in those novels is equally real. And that's ridiculous on its face. You're certainly not providing any sort of framework to separate that which is fictional from that which is real, so you're not making any sort of useful statement about the reality of Atlantis.
As for your suggestion I don't know what I'm talking about? Again, you're making an unwarranted assumption based on faulty or completely inextant information. That makes twice in one post.
Again, in the first place, I'm not aware of any formal, rigorous, profession study of Atlantis at all. In the second place, old academic articles may be used to prove or illustrate old information or old sources in current academic research, but they do not take the place of discussing current academic information and research and are not used in place of such information or research. They are only used in places where they would take the place is instances where there is no current academic research. Like Atlantis. Why is there no current information or research? Because no serious academic is doing that research or writing.
And, in point of fact, fact-mining is not the beginning of scientific research. Observation is. It's a well known process, even to non-scientists like me. First observation, then theorization to explain that observatin, then repeatable, controlled experimentation to confirm or disprove the original theory. Fact-mining does not enter into it. You are mistaken that fact-mining comes into science.
You might have been better off suggesting fact-mining as a part of humanities research. It's not called fact-mining, though, it's called "research". And research is done to amass background knowledge of a subject. The results of that research lead to a formation of a thesis, but the thesis is always a product of the research and never vice-versa. Your 'fact-mining' is the opposite of this process: the attempt to find acontextual data to support a thesis that has already been created. It is the opposite humanities research. So, yes, I do have a problem with it.
Fact-mining is neither an established part of scientific or humanities research: this part of your post shows a faulty conclusion reached by using faulty data.
Why, exactly, is my argument "non-sense"? I urge to actually make an argument rather than just dismissing because it's inconvenient to you.
Hey, quit trying to put incorrect and insulting words in my mouth or trying to say I believe things without the slightest basis for it, and I'll stop picking apart your logic.
You do understand this is a /discussion/ board, right? As in we discuss things here. We debate them. If you want to publish something without hearing any contrary opinions, you can use the blog function available through this site. You can post whatever you want and moderate the comments directly, so you need never her any dissenting viewpoints and let your appreciation of your own genius never go unchallenged.
You just hacked into your keyboard without thinking: that's your "science", am I right?
I never read the article. I never claimed to. My concern was the way you used the article and (latterly) the claims you made about what I knew and believed, and which I have addressed here. As I have made clear, I am no scientist not have any desire to be.
As concerns your own methodology, it appears based on several instances, to be unwarranted speculation based on bad or incomplete evidence. That hardly inspires confidence either in what you say directly or the information you chose to present.
*My dog, Guyon, digs up old things that smell interesting to him and then sniffs them, so he does both investigation, research and evaluation. That makes him at least as thorough as a lot of undergraduates, so I think he does qualify as an historian.