Re: Wild kettle and oxen

From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:23:59 GMT

Sawfish <mtn@q7.com> says in news:1108221163.470581@q7.q7.com:

> 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?

There are archaeological digs in Minnesota and the surrounding
states. The evidence always seems to come from non-archaeological
contexts, and becomes an interpretation of here-say accounts
from the discoverers. Archaeologist are uncovering all kinds
of neat stuff concerning NA and early explorers, how is it that
they never uncover this evidence?

  So let's back track a little bit in our debunking of the group.
The groups name is archaeology, but the evidence presented is
not archaeology at all, its specious arguments and nth hand accounts
full of ambiguities and misinformation. If you will note
and go back and read some of the threads, the second
actual archaeology is mentioned and mention is made of
archaeological sources, when references are asked for, suddenly
all the archaeology dries up and blows away on one side of the
argument. There is no archaeology here, except in counter arguments
it is archaeological wannabe arguments that run away the second they
are challenged. You should note that as I began enumerating the
excuses for why references were not presented, that suddenly
psuedoreferencing of archaeology and history stopped.
  From a global scientific point of view, yes, it is good to see
that we are here refashioning critical methods for dealing
with faulty analysis and propoganda. But for god's sake most
of the propoganda is at grade school level. Probably the most
pointed discussion we have had dealing with analysis was the issue
of zero's meaning, and even there Eric responded by conceding that
believe is much more important than any level of sampling in which
zero events appears. If in the mind of the individual belief trumps
science, the scientific analyses are of no discussion value anyway.
We need not mention the beliefs of the other 2 kooks.
 
> It seems like this group has attracted posters whose one

putative

> 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!

The arguments are grade school level, unfortunately the proponent of
said arguments is teaching grade schoolers. One wonders what the
public service value of that really is, but alas, I don't have kids,
and I don't live in Sweden.
 
> Their bravery
> and determination in the face of adversity is quite admirable,
> and brings a certain poignancy to the term "quixotic".

No, cowardly, because when they are challenged they resort to
libeling people, hypocritically making claims of abuse or stalking,
making spurious claims they are being hacked. Even if this was a
conditioning service for analyses of weak arguments, consider the
fact of how much time has been spent servicing topics like:

1. Who invented email
2. Who created the internet
3. Who created the Usenet
4. What is EU law
5. Swedish datainspection.
6. Pornography.
7. Excuses for not cooperating with information requests.

There can be no scientific utility in a debate in which, when one of
the parties in the debate, when losing, pulls out Nazi tactics in
order to try to win. Consider what many top german scientist did
before and during WWII.

  I can even take the argument one step further. The strategy of
one individual, mdm Inger, even if you will notice her first response
to you, is arrogant. At times arguments borders on ethnocentrism and
rascism. I have pointed out several times that her arguments are
crytoracist, something I think she is sensitive to if she is
sensitive to anything. But cultural mindset is what it is. Ussually
developed in younger life is not subject to change without much
reflection, and I see little in the way of reflection in these
individuals. At this point, I think that a war within her noggin
raged on between the rational and belief, and belief declared victory
over rational and kicked rationality out. As you will note Inger
never apologizes, people extract a backtrack as an apology or a
retraction. IOW there is no remorse for poorly presented or false
arguments. In addition, debunked arguments where 'retraction' was
seen is trolled every 4 or 5 months, and as people have logged these
and stored them for a quick future reply, you will notice we have new
and interesting (more specious) arguments that have come in.
  To cut to the chase, I have a sense that 2+ individuals here have
ludite attitudes when it comes to science, that anything that is
good science must be wrong, irregardless of it's thoroughness. This
issue of sources and references is a guise, a front for essentially
ludite arguments in which nth hand heresay and myth carry more weight
than science. For the debunker, as many of us have run into this
before and some here have religious faith, there is no sense
in arguing with religiously inspired beliefs as they are a matter of
faith. Creation science endangers the divide between science and
religion because it creates arguments that can be disproved, and
brings two opposing sides into conflict. But such arguments do not
need to be solely about god, they can be about tribal myths of origin
or deeds, as in this case. But consider what happens when an
individual tries to 'prove' myths case, they drawn in issues of
their faith in the tribe into the critical eye of science, the
result is the same. The difference is that science can accept
some aspect of myth if it proves to have support, but faith cannot
accept the rejection of science.
  In a functional mind, faith and science are partitioned away from
each other and faith is a matter of tradition, and science a matter
of function. One keeps in mind that faith and science are
incompatible unless ones faith can be challenged by science
and altered by science, the converse situation results in
irrationality. Thus there are only 2 acceptable modes of
rational operation.

1. To avoid bringing issues of faith to scientific critique.
2. To allow science to modify ones faith.
[I should point out I find nothing wrong with religious faith, but if
one accepts path 2 one has to realize that science can and will
scrape embellishments off of myths that are the basis of faith]

And so let us get back to the core of the problem as I see it.
We have an individual here from Sweden, one of the ancestral sources
of the Norse, who claims to have family traditions and stories
of grandious Norse expeditions into the New World. Myth probably
based on some fact, but embellished as myths always are. On how many
occassions in the past have we seen the exhaltation of Linkopink.
We have the same individual making claims about new world
technologies, particularly the more advanced precolumbian
technologies, as derivatives from these Norse traders and
expeditioneers. This aspect of faith projects strongly into the realm
of ethnocentrism, nothing new given 200 years of Victorian belief.
Should we not remember that 'race' as it was applied until the last
census in the U.S. was essentially in accord with the victorian
definition.
   In addition, now that these claims have been debunked by science
from south and mesoamerica we seeing claims being made about the
flora and fauna of the new world, as if musk-ox and oak trees were
somehow the intellectual property of the 'lost' Norse. Grasping
straws, creation science, the masons built Solomons temple, the Jews
built the pyramids, the pharoahs civilized mesoamerica, beliefs
attempt to rationalize itself with science, psuedoscience, thousands
of myths worldwide.

  What you will find that belief based in national or regional myths
will always tend to have a ethnocentric or rascist component to them.
These myths are the exhaltation of a people [The supremacy of
Linkopink], to put oneselves up as being superior to others. Myths or
perception of myth tend to embellish the creators and tellers of the
myth with supernatural qualities. During early science these myths
creeped in, and one has to understand that even the best scientist
during the victorian period were lead also by myth. Remember piltdown
man, was it not the same man who placed PDM so high who also
characterized homo rhodesiensis, a find that was almost ignored. And
yet this recent origin from africa only took wind under wing with
molecular analysis, myth lead the argument for almost a century, 40
years after PDM was debunked, and it still leads some leading
scientist.
  There is, in fact, so much myth in the world that science is a
rarity, and debunking all myths are a waste of time, time that could
be better spent elevating science, even in this group. 

-- 
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci  http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.    http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... science is "crap" because you don't like what it's telling you. ... I have heard the first part said, that faith based view are not ... Scientists don't claim that all ... does not mean the whole set of myths about the Trojan war are true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.particle)