The maker of LexiLine, a law school graduate,
has been arguing
for as long as he can remember
that the study of man's history
should be
EVIDENCE-BASED
and
NOT
"authority-based".

Too many things in science and scholarship are taken for granted as facts based on somebody's "say-so". Indeed, in archaeology, there is an unwritten rule that for the first 10 years (!) only the finder of an artifact can publish about it.

Of course, there is no guarantee that a finder is also competent to interpret correctly what he or she has found, so this practice allows original erroneous interpretations to become fixed over time by default, later to be adopted as givens simply on the "say-so" of the original finders. It is a very strange practice that leads to errors.

In the law, "say-so" is called "hearsay" when it is something "heard said" from someone else,
and using "hearsay" is not very good evidence.

Worse, any "say-so" is often simply based on somebody else's "say-so",
e.g. one professor quoting another professor, etc., etc., often over generations.

That may please the academics, but it leads to many serious errors.

The expressed views of scholars -- when traced to their origins --
are often no more than opinions, educated guesses or hypotheses
which simply become entrenched over time.

Quite apart from the opinions of academia,
what does the evidence really tell us
about ancient cultures and the history of civilization?

What does the probative evidence
actually tell us about man's past?

Probative evidence
is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a stated thing.

In law, anything other than probative evidence in not admissible in court.

Most of the evidence relied on by mainstream historical research would be thrown out of court without question as inadmissible, because that evidence simply does not say what scholars say it does.

Archaeology provides a good example of how scholars rely on non-probative evidence to draw far-reaching conclusions which down the road are actually proven by probative evidence to be totally wrong.

The quote below is taken from this author's previous posting in his LawPundit blog (now a book):

Not all disciplines understand evidence the way that the law does. John F. Hughes, Professor of Computer Science at Brown University, provides us with the following anecdote about the way in which archaeologists treat evidence:

"In 2001, archaeologists discovered a ship sunk in the middle of the Mediterranean, surrounded by amphorae. From this they concluded that the ancient Greeks actually HAD sailed offshore. What's remarkable was that until this discovery, they'd been convinced that they DIDN'T. Why? Well, because they found all the wrecks near shore. This ignores several important things: (1) Wrecks tend to HAPPEN near shore -- that's where the rocks and shoreline are. (2) Near shore was where they were looking for the wrecks. (3) The written record documents many long sea voyages, but these were all discounted as fanciful. (4) Crete is out of sight of the mainland, and yet Greece traded with it. Makes you wanna [...], no?"

The above example mirrors faulty mainstream methods in many of the "soft sciences", especially Archaeology and attendant fields such as Biblical Studies, Egyptology and Near Eastern Studies, all of which have led mainstream scholarship to adopt many erroneous views of man's history.

The case of Biblical Moses is a good example.

No probative archaeological evidence has yet been found
for the current chronology
attached by mainstream scholars
to the life of Moses and the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt.
None.
ZERO. Not a single pot.

This does not seem to disturb mainstream scholars,
but it disturbs us,
especially because modern current events in the Middle East
are driven by prevailing historical judgments about the Jews.

And those judgments are false, demonstrably false.

In fact,
either Moses is a character of fiction,
because he can not possibly have lived
in the era currently ascribed to him,
or,
Moses must have lived at a different time
than currently assigned to him by mainstream scholarship
at a time when his existence is supported by archaeological probative evidence.

And if Moses lived in a different age,
as we allege,
then the current mainstream history of the Middle East
and also the accepted history of Pharaonic Egypt
is in large part simply terribly false.

Such historical problems are the focus of LexiLine.

There are many, many evidentiary problems
in historical research and chronology
and we draw our attention to these problems as we find them.
We are not out to push some particular view,
but we CAN identify the views that CAN NOT be correct,
regardless of what the correct answer may turn out to be.

Please note in this context,
that our OWN views must be classified as "speculative"
since they do not enjoy the support of mainstream scholars
or academia in general --
who have not contradicted them, which would be hard to do.

The errors
that we point out in mainstream research
do actually exist.

The PROBATIVE EVIDENCE tells a different tale
than what is taught in the schools,
and a different tale than what is learned in the schools.

That is why we call LexiLine a Renaissance in Learning.

There is of course no guarantee
that OUR OWN views,
based on the probative evidence,
are necessarily more correct than mainstream dogma,
but the odds are GREATLY in our favor. Greatly.

Enjoy your reading of this website | Quick Index of LexiLine.com |.

-- Andis Kaulins,
J.D., Stanford Law School, 1971,
owner and author of LexiLine.com