Q and Papias

As one who takes a literary approach to the Bible, I find these
discussions of history (especially history "behind" the text)
generally uninteresting.  I mean, really, how reliable is Papias,
or Eusebius?  What I have to object to, however, is the implication
that one can somehow start in a neutral position, sift the
"evidence" (as though evidence existed prior to theory), and then
objectively decide the issue.  Please, read Kuhn or Quine or Copi,
or almost any contemporary philosopher of science.  That neutrality
doesn't exist -- in biblical studies any more than anywhere else. 
If you claim that it does, then I suspect that you've got something
to hide.  Speaking of which, is it true that Farmer-Griesbach-etc.
advocates tend to be "conservative" (using the word quite loosely)
Protestants, and 2 Source advocates tend not to be?  Does *that*
perhaps have something to do with this thread?

Insofar as I do have to make assumptions about historical matters,
I find the Q hypothesis works better than the others.  Conversely,
I find the results of my own work are more congenial to Markan
priority than the alternative.  I do not pretend that my partiality
is unbiased.

George Aichele