Truth, Validity and Falsehood in Numismatics
Mike Marotta
money. As a science, numismatics includes the objectice (rational-
empirical) study of the forms and uses of money.
(As a subset of aesthetics numismatics also examines subjective value
judgments about the forms and uses of money. It is generally conceded
by numismatists that the Churchill Crown failed as an art object.
However, that discussion, while it can -- and at root must -- have an
objective determination, calls on questions of evaluation that are
inherently subjective. That is not the discussion here. Form,
symmetry, line and space, are more than perceptual facts. Whether
Playboy's "Miss April" is "art" in the same sense as "La
Gioconda" (Mona Lisa) is not a scientific question.)
As a science, numismatics conforms to the scientific method. The
method can be variously described in 3, 5, 7 or other discrete steps.
Here is a 6-Step statement.
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Perhaps the most intensive exploration and application was developed
by Norman Edmund (of Edmund Scientific) as a 14-Step procedure.
Guide to Steps or Stages of Mental Activity
PART 1 – Observation through Hypothesis
1. Curious Observation
2. Is There a Problem?
3. Goals and Planning
4. Search, Explore, & Gather the Evidence
5. Generate Creative & Logical Alternatives
6. Evaluate the Evidence
7. Make the Educated Guess
Part II – Challenge through Suspend Judgment
8. Challenge the Hypothesis
9. Reach a Conclusion
10. Suspend Judgment Part III – Implementation or Peer Review
11. Take Action
Supporting Ingredients
Part IV – Action or Applied Ingredients
12. Creative, Non-logical, Logical & Technical Methods
13. Procedural Principles & Theories
14. Attributes & Thinking Skills
http://www.scientificmethod.com/
Whether dating an ancient coin or evaluating the commercial
functionality of US Fractional Notes, determining the cause of a Mint
Error, the scientific method is the means to establishing truth.
To be true, an assertion must be empirically observable and rationally
explicable. Truths are objective. In other words, true statements
are facts that are independent of the observer and in addition a truth
is a statement that is internally consistent. Truths are non-
contradictory.
Many useful statements are valid, but not true. In our common speech,
we might call some of them "social truths." For instance, dollar
coins are unpopular. The statement begs a question: popular with
whom? "Popularity" hinges on statistical studies that rest on the
selection of a population. The statement that dollar coins are
unpopular might be shown to be valid -- some people do not like them;
that is a fact -- but the broad claim is neither "true" nor "false" as
a million people selecting paper dollars when given a choice could not
invalidate the preference of a single person singing their praises.
On the other hand, whether or not the Kremnica Mint issued this coin:
http://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=648259&AucID=471&Lot=974
is not subject to a popularity poll. It is a matter of scientific
investigation.
Falsehoods are revealed when the evidence fails to conform to
scientific test. Such test are not only empirical. Weight, die
matches, and other sensoria are merely perceptions. To have meaning,
those empirical facts must have a non-contradictory explanation. The
best recent example comes from the Western Assay Bars.
http://www.fake-gold-bars.co.uk/
Western Assay Bars were offered by an expert.
Western Assay Bars were accepted by the numismatic community.
Western Assay Bars were catalogued in The Red Book and displayed at
The Smithsonian Museum.
Western Assay Bars had characteristics that were expected and
accepted.
But, they failed the scientific method because the explanations for
them lacked internal consistency.
Ultimately, new empirical evidence from The Brother Jonathan provided
the sensory information -- fabric, devices -- that completed the
condemnation. Lacking that empirical evidence, the internal
contradictions alone (rational inconsistency), while raising
significant questions, was not sufficient to condemn the body of
objects.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Objectivism is rational-empiricism."
Mike Marotta
On Jul 9, 11:18 am, Frank Provasek <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote:
> ... Application of
> science doesn't equate with application of the "ScientificMethod."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&dq=scientific+method&so...
On Frank's recommendation, I got this book via interlibrary loan
through my university library. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN PRACTICE by
Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. (Cambridge University Press, 2003) is an excellent
reminder of the obvious. Seriously ... and we need this.
I have had the book for about 10 days and it is due back on August 7.
I cannot finish it. So, it is on my list of books to buy. It is that
important. My BSc is in criminology. We claim that it is a science.
However, in a graduate class in criminology theory, our book of
readings presented the post-modernist case that there is no reality
and you would not know it if you experienced it, which you do not.
There is no science, only a scientistic discourse, a social narrative
that gives privileged space to eurocentric, phallocentric consumption
of resources. Honestly, we learned that. In the second class one of
the people from the sheriff's department expressed outrage at Bernie
Madoff, so I used that in a 45 minute engagement to get someone
(anyone) to say that there is a difference between right and wrong and
you can know what it is.
As for numismatics, it could be a science. We claim that it is.
However, after reading the first 100 pages of this book, I am
confident that I have never read a scientific paper about
numismatics. Like CSI:TV, we apply techniques from sciences. but
never actually "do" science. That said, I am not sure that I have
read many truly scientific papers at all. When I think back on
papers, they, too, have "followed the cookbook," but not actually been
scientific.
Gauch identifies "four bold claims" that science makes: rationality,
truth, objectivity, and realism. He also addresses two important
challenges within science, falsifiability and parsimony. In fact,
unable to read the entire book now, I skipped to the back where Gauch
presents his own strong case for PARSIMONY. It is unappreciated in
science, he says, and it can lead to powerful predictions.
Falsifiability comes from Sir Karl Popper, of course. It is important
because non-sciences such as astrology (or Marxism) have explanatory
power. They also have some predictive value. What they lack is a
standard of disproof. What would it take to make this claim fail? is
a question not asked in numismatics. I am currently researching the
claim that The Wizard of Oz is a parable for the populist movement of
1896 -- Scarecrow = Farmer; Oz = Gold; etc. I just watched Dr. Lane
J. Brunner's presentation to the Numismatic Theater at Charlotte. He
is very inventive. He never suggests a standard for disproof, even
though his doctorate is in pharmacy. In fact, he is the dean of the
school of pharmacy at Regis University. Psychological
compartmentalization is a fact of life. Clearly, Dr. Brunner does not
practice numismatics as a science. Apparently, not many people do.
We have a large body of historical descriptions, many of which include
statistical arithmetic about empirical data -- weights and diameters
of coins, for instance; numbers of cut coins within hoards; etc. Yet,
we do not have an unambigous definition for "coin." Our operational
definition for "money" fails when inspected.
Mike M,
Michael E. Marotta
"No comment"
Mr. Jaggers
No offense, Mike, but could we now please move on to something more concrete
and definable, such as the Higgs Boson, and how it relates to recidivism,
String Theory and the 2009 hiatus in the minting of business strike U.S.
nickels and dimes?
James the Simple
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Coins are easy to tell from tokens, medals, medallions, jetons,
counters, tiddl-i-winks and etc.
Hell, a "coin" is like pornography: I know it when I see it.
If you can't tell what a freakin' coin is, you need to go see a
shrink.
oly
Mike Marotta
> Coins are easy to tell from tokens, medals, medallions, jetons,
> counters, tiddl-i-winks and etc.
OK. Please, describe for us, in all the words you need, exactly what
it is you know when you see a coin.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Throws down a gauntlet."
PC
I smell a dodge coming. It would be his typical MO.
Mr. Jaggers
Smells more like a Plymouth to me. Some of their models had a problem with
the catalytic converters.
James the Mechanic
oly
Show me one that you can't tell, gauntlet boy. I said I know it when
I see it.
oly
mazorj
"PC" <Super...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd95ea65-4ecf-49be...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I have a special box full of genuine coins. I know they're coins because
they're certified as such even though they're not slabbed. The dealer in
China who sold them to me showed where they all carry the official
attributing imprimatur of the appropriate regional office of the
government's numismatic certification authority. According to the vendor,
they're very strict about these things in China so the seal of approval from
the government is a guarantee that you can take to the bank.
The regional certification office's name, translated into typically awkward
English bureaucratese, is "Coinage Origins and Provenances - Yangtze."
More commonly known in the West by its acronym:
COPY
Mr. Jaggers
I'm still trying to decide whether the 100 pesetas "Naked Maja" silver round
from Equatorial Guinea is a coin or pornography.
James the Voyeur
PC
Ol' reliable strikes again. Is it a coin if it depicts a half-breed or
queer elite?
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now that I have some time - IF you need an answer to the big picture
question:
Money is a tool, a useful artifact.
People create and use various tools to get goods (and services) that
they wish to have. Some tools are simple, some are more complex.
Coins are a subset of money (formerly the primary subset, but nowadays
a very minor subset).
If Mike must publicly blather and wring-his-hands about not being able
to distinquish what a coin is, let him give an example (especially a
useful pictoral example) of just what confuses him. Even if it's not
me, I'll bet that somebody on RCC can set his on the right path. If
he can't provide an example of something coin-like that he considers
difficult or impossible to ascertain, then (as expected) the whole
matter can best be ignored.
All coin-like objects need to be put to the "Is it Money?" test BEFORE
they are put to the "Is it a Coin?" test. Never vice-versa.
The "Is it Money test?" is best outlined as Aristotle defined the
three functions of money.
IF Yes, then the "Is it a Coin?" test is not so easy to outline, but
again, "I know it when I see it".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have a tricky candidate myself for the "Is it a Coin?" test, but I
gotta read Professor Michael Grant again before I propose it.
oly
Mike Marotta
> If Mike must publicly blather and wring-his-hands about not being able
> to distinquish what a coin is, let him give an example (especially a
> useful pictoral example) of just what confuses him.
The question is whether there is an accepted definition within
numismatics of what a "coin" is -- or any other of the many things we
study. The lack of such definitions is one problem that keeps
numismatics from truly being practiced as a science.
You cannot simply take each object in turn and identify it as "coin"
or "not coin" without a standard of discrimination. That is the
question: what is the standard?
This object liked below has no statement of value. Many of the
definitions of "coin" require that the object have "legal tender
value." By those standards, this object is a MEDAL, not a coin.
http://www.usagold.com/gold/coins/pics/gold-coin-victoria.jpeg
Of course, people accepted these "medals" as coins for hundreds of
years...
Testifying for the USPS against Hutt River Principality, Ken Bressett
said that to be money (to be a coin), an object must be acceptable in
more than one place. Here is a pretty set of coins -- and I agree that
they are coins -- than can only be spent in just one place of 110
acres with 900 inhabitants.
http://www.joelscoins.com/images/vat71setobvr.jpg
The point, here, is not to stop Mike from wringing his hands, but to
define what you are talking about. "We know it when we see it" is not
a scientific answer. Absent such, numismatics may use the techniques
of science without actually being a science ... as for instance when
astrologers use the same ephemeris as navigators.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Value me as you choose."
oly
> On Jul 29, 6:08 pm, oly <oly2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If Mike must publicly blather and wring-his-hands about not being able
> > to distinquish what a coin is, let him give an example (especially a
> > useful pictoral example) of just what confuses him.
>
> The question is whether there is an accepted definition within
> numismatics of what a "coin" is -- or any other of the many things we
> study. The lack of such definitions is one problem that keeps
> numismatics from truly being practiced as a science.
>
> You cannot simply take each object in turn and identify it as "coin"
> or "not coin" without a standard of discrimination. That is the
> question: what is the standard?
>
> This object liked below has no statement of value. Many of the
> definitions of "coin" require that the object have "legal tender
>
> Of course, people accepted these "medals" as coins for hundreds of
> years...
>
> Testifying for the USPS against Hutt River Principality, Ken Bressett
> said that to be money (to be a coin), an object must be acceptable in
> more than one place. Here is a pretty set of coins -- and I agree that
> they are coins -- than can only be spent in just one place of 110
>
> The point, here, is not to stop Mike from wringing his hands, but to
> define what you are talking about. "We know it when we see it" is not
> a scientific answer. Absent such, numismatics may use the techniques
> of science without actually being a science ... as for instance when
> astrologers use the same ephemeris as navigators.
>
> Mike M.
> Michael E. Marotta
> "Value me as you choose."
My goodness. A British gold sovereign is a coin and Hutt River
province is crap. If you can't do any better than that, go parse
words elsewhere.
Very un-impressive psuedo-intellectualism there, Mikey.
oly
Mike Marotta
> My goodness. A British gold sovereign is a coin and Hutt River
> province is crap.
I agree that the sov is a coin, as I said that the coins of the
Vatican are coins. The coins of HRP are coins, as well.
This issue goes back to 1994, to the summer when coins@cobra became
RCC. It came up again 2000 and occasionally since then. No one has
said, "Look here, Marotta, the ANA Dictionary of Numismatics says...."
I assert that this is because anyone who went to standard numismatic
references found the same problem that I did: a lack of consistency
and rigor, disagreement among authorities, and failure to identify the
essential distinguishing chararcteristic, the subject or the
predicate.
I simply asked you for a definition. You have none. From what you
have said so far, your methodolgy is concrete and social. You take
each example in turn and guess what the most common opinion is.
Mike M.
MIchael E. Marotta
"Rooted in radicals."
oly
Indeed, "social": coins are artifacts. It is implied in the word
"artifact" that "humans" are involved. There is not one thing wrong
with factoring in just how people used the items in question. If you
ask the question first "Is it Money?", that will mean that you won't
have to ask the next question "Is it a Coin?" in many many instances.
I thought you might bring up something interesting & posing like those
metallic amphitheatre "tickets/tokens" issued in 2nd and 3rd century
Rome (I can't find the exact archaeological term that I'm looking for
on these - but they are very coin-like) or maybe certain English coin
weights that look a lot like the coins that they were supposed to be
the equivalents of.
Merrian-Webster has no problem defining the word "coin". Carlton's
International Dictionary of Numismatics can also define the word,
although they aren't as concise. But no, you seem to be worried about
the excrescense that late 20th century middle-class American
collectors have added on to the idea of "coin".
The game isn't worth the candle.
oly