[split] Torsten's criticism of Bowern & Lindemann

[Torsten]

--> We have to be critical of everything, but we also have to know when expertise takes precedence. When it comes to the matter of Lisa's scribes, the overwhelming sentiment on the forum seems to be that paleography is such a specialized subject, that we just have to accept her views as the most authoritative statements we have on the matter. Until another paleographer comes along and challenges these views, there are five scribes as far as I am concerned.

I can accept this as your viewpoint. But does this mean that I have to adopt this view point? Does that mean that it is not allowed to challenge authoritative statements or the overwhelming sentiment on a subject? Shouldn't it be easy to contradict my arguments if they are unreasonable (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)? Isn't Lisa stating "Along with anyone else, Torsten is more than welcome to disagree with me in accordance with his own observations, as no one should accept my conclusions without critical analysis" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)?

To keep aggressively chasing people with all potentially contradictory or mistaken things they have ever said is very unpleasant and unproductive.

I agree that it doesn't matter what Lisa said about Ahmet Ardıç Turkish attempt or the identity of the five scribes. In the first case she didn't state it as a fact and in the second case it is obviously a mistake. I only used this as examples since they didn't require long explanations. Sorry for that. I should have used another way to demonstrate that everybody can make mistakes.

Currier's merit is his discovery of different dialects, coinciding with two hands. He did indeed mention the possibility of more scribes, but this seems to have been more of an afterthought.

Currier did more than that. In the linear transcription file, as well as on resources like the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Currier’s scribal identifications are listed for each page. These identifications include not only Scribe 1 and Scribe 2, but also Scribe 3, 4, 5, X and Y. Lisa Fagin Davis argues, "My preliminary results identify five hands—the two defined by Prescott Currier as Scribe 1 and Scribe 2, and three more, designated Scribe 3, Scribe 4, and Scribe 5" (Lisa Fagin Davis 2020, p. 172). However, this description is inaccurate. Lisa attributes all pages in language A to Scribe 1, including those in the Pharmaceutical section. In contrast, Currier only attributes the Herbal A pages to Scribe 1. In other words, Lisa is using Currier's language identification to define Scribe 1, which in my view, weakens the argument that Scribe 1 directly corresponds to the identification of language A.