Stylistic analysis, whether manual or automated, can be something of a trap. It’s terribly easy to forget how little we really know about the texts before us, the language which none of us speak as a native and which changes considerably over the thousand years before us, the vagaries of editors, the influence of ammanuenses and copyists, and of the non-literary spoken language, which surrounds the literary text like a warm bath at every instant but is almost invisible to us.
Source: Words, Words, Words: A response to Richard Carrier on Feldman and Eusebius – Roger Pearse
A very, very good point– and it, amusingly enough, reminded me of problem I had with an article earlier today.
The author went from the very good point of how incredibly awesome our agricultural sector is, to…pushing farming as a way to get rich. Uh, no. Paper rich farmers in plenty, but the only (modern) rich farmers or ranchers that I know started out that way! Yeah, you sell the cows and get a HUGE paycheck– the thing is, from that you have to pay for feed, labor…all the production costs.
But this is the same guy who wants to take away water rights and redistribute them in a way that makes sense to him, so it’s more fair and “rational,” without even finding out why the situation is the way it is.
Head Noises 