tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post113382184589324890..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A palaeontologist's view of manuscriptsP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1133872073715741042005-12-06T12:27:00.000+00:002005-12-06T12:27:00.000+00:00Cisne, J. 2005. How science survived: Medieval man...Cisne, J. 2005. How science survived: Medieval manuscripts' "demography" and<BR/>classic texts' extinction. Science 307(Feb. 25):1305-1307. Available at<BR/>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5713/1305<BR/><BR/>Well, call me an old sceptic, but I don't think this is going to help anybody.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The modelling is both too complicated and too simplistic. It is too complicated in the general sense that it involves mathematics (something I repented of long ago). It is too simplistic in the sense that it transposes population growth assumptions onto the manuscripts (e.g. each manuscript is equal in its ability to reproduce - something that I doubt is true). <BR/><BR/>I suppose it is worth thinking about what variables to input into the modelling. The response article has some useful reflections:<BR/><BR/>Gilman, S.L., and F.E. Glaze. 2005. Enhanced: "How science<BR/>survived"-medieval manuscripts as fossils. Science 307(Feb. 25):1208-1209.<BR/>Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5713/1208<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks to Wieland Willker for posting the titles to the textualcriticism email group.Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com