Rajaram's PILTDOWN horse

[Yaroslav Vassilkov]

Fri, 04 Aug 100 21:27 +0300 MSK Subrahmanya S. wrote to INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK:

> I hope that Dr.Rajaram admits his mistake.
>
> Because it was a visual image and the claim was
> very big, the falsity was (comparitively) easy to expose.
>
> On the other hand -
> What happens when a person indulges in mistranslations
> of passages in order to prove ones point or theory ?
> Is it any less objectionable ?
>

In both cases we have to judge by the same rules.

If a scholar reads an old text wrongly or misinterpretes an old
picture we call it a mistake.

If he indulges in mistranslations or misinterpretations of old texts/pictures
in order to prove his theory, colleagues may suspect such a scholar to be
biased. Sooner or later his scholarly reputation would be ruined.

But when a man in order to prove his theory
        1) prepares a forged text which he declares to be old and
        authentic (as, for example, the so-called "Protocols of the
        Wise Men of Zion" - the notorious forgery, favourite of Nazis
        of all nations), or
        2) makes a forged picture which he declares to be old and authentic
        (as Dr.Rajaram seems to have done, see www.safarmer.com/pico/delusion3.html)-

we cannot call it a mistake. It is something else. You may choose the word yourself.

Regards,
                                                        Yaroslav Vassilkov

---
Yaroslav Vassilkov (yavass at YV1041.spb.edu)
Institute of Oriental Studies
Sun, 06 Aug 100 10:02 +0300 MSK