User talk:Berlant
Welcome
[edit]
|
Talkback
[edit]Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Venus of Hohle Fels
[edit]Hi Berlant,
Regarding your edit to the Venus of Hohle Fels, I find the sentence "Venus figurines were sculpted to personify the developmental stages of mushrooms as the mushrooms' mothers" difficult to understand. Could you simplify it?
I'm also worried that publication in Anistor may still count as original research. Are there any third-party sources to back up the mushroom link?
Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article explains in detail exactly why prehistoric sculptors personified the developmental stages of mushrooms as the mushrooms' mothers. I have, however, changed the statement you found problematic to "Venus figurines were sculpted to personify the "vulvate volva" from which the mature mushroom's typically phallic stipe and cap emerged as the mushroom's mother. According to this theory, the practice was based on the documented and anciently widespread belief that mushrooms were hermaphroditic organisms comprising a phallic stipe and cap that emerged from a vulvate volva which together allowed the organism to reproduce parthenogenetically, rather than sexually."
- As for the notion that the article is “original research,” based on my knowledge of the methods people have typically used to summarily reject anything that called their deeply rooted beliefs into question, claiming that a theory is “original research” is merely one such method. However, you and Wiki’s administrators,including my old friend Doug Weller, should recognize that Wiki is absolutely filled with assumptions, opinions, hypotheses, and other forms of “original research”. To wit, Wiki's entry for the Venus of Willendorf contains this statement: "Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that the figurines may have been created as self-portraits."
- Why might that be? Because it was published in Current Anthropology, and everyone knows that anything that Current Anthropology publishes is a proven fact. Gimme a break! Even the most stringently reviewed empirical sciences journals are absolutely filled with things that we now consider garbage, and Anthropology isn't even an empirical science -- though some anthropologists think it is because they use empirical methods for some things, and couch the resulting theories in jargonistic "technospeak."
- In fact, Wiki contains a plethora of "original research" posing as facts, simply because supposed experts and their followers have been repeating those things ad nauseum as if they were facts, and Wiki's administrators apparently don't have the ability to evaluate the evidence and arguments comprising every theory theory for themselves -- even though this may be justified in some cases. Consequently, statements to the effect that the figurines in question were sculpted to depict women abstractly for pornographic, apotropaic or any other reasons are nothing but restatements of “original research” that have taken on the patina of factuality based on repetition and appeals to authority.
- If the history of science teaches anything, it is that a theory’s validity doesn’t depend one iota on how many people believe or repeat it, or who does the repeating. A theory’s validity depends on its ability to explain the available evidence more logically, parsimoniously, instructively, and syncretically than its competitors -- especially if it can also explain in a similar manner the anomalies its competitors ignored or attempted to explain away as coincidences. As the theory I cited does exactly that, I am as confident as I can be that it will be accepted sooner or later, regardless of whether Wiki's administrators or anyone else does or does not accept it at this point in time.
- If, however, Wiki's administrators insist on judging whether a theory is valid based on the number of people who believe and repeat it, who those people are, or where it was published, suffice it to say that Carl Ruck, a classics professor at Tufts, presented my interpretation of the Venus of Willendorf, which I presented years earlier in The Journal of Prehistoric Religion (Volume XIII, 1999, pp. 22-31), as his own on page p. 23 of “Sacred Mushrooms of the Goddess and the Secrets of Eleusis," and John Rush cited "Ruck’s" interpretation verbatim on page 8 of “The mushroom in Christian Art.”
- As I stated above, however, it doesn't matter one iota who repeats a theory or how many times it is repeated: If it did, we'd all be walking around on a flat earth in a geocentric solar system. In summary, I suggests that people be allowed to evaluate the evidence and arguments underpinning my theory for themselves in the interest of science, rather than attempting to "sanitize" the entries in which I cited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berlant (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Berlant.
- Thanks for your response. It might be helpful to read the policy on No original research. In no way am I making a judgement on the validity of the mushroom theory; I simply am not an expert in the area, and I am sure your knowledge here greatly outweighs my own. I'm very keen for you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, so please don't be offended that I question a source. The point being, on Wikipedia, truth has to rest in the references, not the expert, and so it is important to check they are sound, and that means we have to rely on published third-party sources, not just, for example, blogs or twitter, where anyone can write anything.
- I've tried to expand the article, and added more papers, including one of your own, but I wouldn't mind some more clarification (in the article) of your hypothesis. And perhaps you can improve my edits to the expanded 'Use' area too. Many thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Image without license
[edit]Unspecified source/license for File:C--Graphics-mt phallus.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:C--Graphics-mt phallus.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
