From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: writing Re: The Nightstalker makes an observation
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.144410.4247@cs.tulane.edu> pierce@navo.navy.mil (Jim M. Pierce) writes:

>    I took a Bibical Archaology class last year. The professor told us that
>  there were computer programs that could pick out a writing style. Thats
>  how researchers know that numerous people wrote what we thought were
>  Shakespeare's plays and also how we know that three people wrote the book
>  of Genesis. A woman wrote most of it, with two men contributing some
>  writing to it. I belive he said they used original Aramaic manuscripts
>  from some era. Sorry I don't remember exact dates, its possible they used
>  the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I am not certain. And yes, the information that
>  a woman wrote most of the book of Genesis upset several people in that
>  classroom.

	"My understanding is that saying `we know' the aforementioned
things is ascribing a bit more certainty to the computer methods
referred to than is really appropriate.  Even leaving aside the
Biblical questions, I'm _certain_ that the claim that Shakespeare was
written by multiple authors is not free of controversy or even
generally accepted-- at most, it's a theory accepted by a minority of
scholars.  I've seen some discussion of programs like the ones
described, and the accuracy of the models used was pretty hotly
debated at last check.  I haven't studied the matter in detail, but
the first thing I'd want to know is how well these programs do in
distinguishing the writing styles of current authors, particularly
authors who vary their styles or attempt to emulate others (since
Shakespeare very likely varied his own in response to the source
material he was using).  I'd also want to know what basis they'd use
for determining the gender of an author-- particularly in a culture
where the compilation in question forms a major part of the source
material for determining _anything_ about writing styles.

	"Something to remember is that in academia, it's generally
necessary to come up with something new and (at least somewhat)
interesting in order to get published.  This encourages innovation,
but it also leads to a need to come up with something new to say.  To
paraphrase that well-known scholar, Dave Barry ( :-) ), no historian
is going to get paid much to write a book that says Harry S Truman was
a plain-spoken man from Missouri.  Write a book that says that Harry S
Truman was secretly a transsexual Communist, on the other hand, and
you have an exciting new theory.  Of course, in reality, it's
necessary to be able to support your theory somewhat, but it's still
easier to publish if you assert that the previous generation of
scholars was wrong, and you have a new way of looking at the evidence.
It's best, therefore, to look critically at theories which turn old
ideas on their heads.  They may be based on new evidence, new methods,
or simply a new way of looking at things.  All of these must be
evaluated critically before determining whether a theory is a
flash-in-the-pan or an important change in the field."

Michael

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Workers of the world, forgive me.
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 You had more to lose than I thought."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Karl Marx (1990) as imagined by
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Jim Koncz (konc@midway.uchicago.edu)