Автор сообщения: Равиль
Дата и время сообщения: 28 July 2008 at 12:55:59:
В ответ на сообщение: Re: Кумулятивный ответ - продолжение
"В истории же работу с неизвестным документом (возможно на малоизвестном языке) можно рассматривать как наблюдение или эксперимент."
Как эксперимент по восприятию разными людьми , но со схожими предпосылками ( импринтингом ) текста . В этом случае можно воспринимать как эксперимент.
"В таком разрезе теория Фоменко сразу становится ненаучной, поскольку никому еще не удалось воспроизвести ее эмпирико-статистические эксперименты."
Что по вашему значит воспроизвести эмпирико-статистические эксперименты теории Фоменко ?
Вот смотрите отзыв и можете написать письмо этому человеку
Earth is flat, March 27, 2004
By Alec "bugor_dc" (Vancouver, BC, Canada) - See all my reviews
This review is from: History: Fiction or Science? (Paperback)
Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. There was some disagreement about the way it was kept afloat, most common versions were elephants, whales and turtles, but that was subject for scientific discussion. Until Magellan sailed around the globe and proved all this science wrong.
This book is precisely about same situation. Although it is written for casual reader, it still bears all the traits of scientific research. I was suspicious about credibility of this book, because of the scandalous 10,000.00 bet placed as advertisement here (you can beat math only by math, and guy who posted the ad knows this).
I've studied math using Fomenko's textbooks as supplementary source at Fraser university (there are around 14 textbooks on math, at least known to me, written by Fomenko and translated to English, pretty expensive and rare as all advanced textbooks, but I'm pretty sure it is possible to fish something at your local university, here is the one for the start - ISBN: 0792326067).
I've run some of the statistical examples in SPSS (of course simplified and using data from the book) and results were similar. Math doesn't lie, but there is old saying "garbage in - garbage out", so take my results as is. Anyway, history as a science is based on books written by previous generation of historians, who based their works on works of previous generation of historians, supplemented by archeological digs (great deal of assumptions was made there too, as people didn't usually mark their belongings with dates), so it definitely needs some mathematical treatment.
It is very difficult to digest the new version of history from Fomenko without getting allergic shock. Official timeline is accepted in the same way as gravity, and movement of the sun; many nations have developed their identity based on official history. Literally speaking chronology is in our culture, in our roots, personal identity. Someone said here that this book was written by Russian nationalist to reassure Russian national identity. May be so, but I think for Russians will be very difficult to swallow that they were actually Mongols and Tatars too.
This book will turn your world upside down. Literally.