Re: Wild kettle and oxen

From: Doug Weller (dweller_at_ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:34:06 +0000

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:12:43 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Sawfish wrote:

>Doug Weller <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:07:56 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Michael Kuettner
>>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"Alaca" <P.Alaca@is.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:420bfa30$0$35790$a344fe98@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>>> Michael Kuettner wrote in: 3723jpF57dqb9U3@individual.net,
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>> > I kick IEJ; asking something without a brain doesn't accomplish
>>>> > anything.
>>>> > No need for apologies, btw. It's just that shm gets spammed
>>>> > by the *** Hines (_massive_ crosspostings); and Ingwer
>>>> > added is just too much.
>>>> > Just check the headers, please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oke Michael, but I think it is a bit strange that you criticize scia,
>>>Why ?
>>>I've been here longer than most; I've seen the great Kookinsky-
>>>Diffusion wars; I've seen good posters leave while the "pond-scum"
>>>accumulates.
>>>Apart from Philip and Tom (and maybe you) no people with a love
>>>for archaeology have become posters here.
>
>>Philip? I don't see him as having a love for archaeology in the sense I
>>think you mean it.
>>>Competent people like Horace or tk don't bother to bring in some
>>>substance; they're merely amusing themselves here.
>
>>They certainly have.
>
>>As have I, but my main interest is of course the debunking side, and I
>>confine myself more or less to that now here, other interests grab my
>>time.
>
>>[SNIP]
>
>>Doug
>
>Interesting.
>
>I would heartily agree that s.a has become a target-rich zone for
>debunking. It has been that way for *years*. What it is good for is not
>for obtaining information, but to hone one's logical analysis skills--to
>really get a handle on epistemology. I mean that seriously: that's what
>this group is good for. Who *cares* if a bunch of Scandinavians reached
>the interior of Minnesota in the 14th C? What's important is: how can we
>know that, for sure? By what methodology can we satisfactorily determine
>this? What level of fastidiously studied evidence is sufficient, and how
>do we qualify its quality?

I agree completely. I'd add that in doing this I've learned more not just
about methodology but about archaeology in general.

>It seems like this group has attracted posters whose one redeeming social
>value is that they are willing to tirelessly generate demonstrably
>specious arguments for the rest of the world to dissect. This is quite a
>public service! Their bravery and determination in the face of adversity
>is quite admirable, and brings a certain poignancy to the term "quixotic".

:-)

Doug 

-- 
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk