Yes, Alan, this kind of postmodern criticism of the "one-truth-Enlightenment" has been going on much longer than 50 years now in the academia. Machlup and Arbesman are just two out of 100's.
However, for a discussion on a forum like this, and to be able to handle other "non-academic" everyday situations, I find it quite boring and nonconstructive to force all participants to write long disclaimers each time they state something. If it would be in an academic situation the accepted way would be first to have a method and theory discussion about these factors of skepticism and uncertainty to show that you are aware of them. And after that you would be allowed to state something and argue that it is valuable current knowledge. And then in the end you could write that you hope someone in the future will be able to add-on new knowledge and perhaps prove that you were wrong (like, for instance, Freud did).
If the moderators are afraid that the participants of this forum are not aware of this philosophical discussion, maybe they (David
) can write some kind of disclaimer for us all so we can keep the discussion going in each thread?
I think a statement like: "Most probably it was supposed to be a Yaksha" , which both contributes to the discussion but at the same time accepts the existence of alternative interpretations, is better suited to answer the level of a non-academic forum like this.
Michael