Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:09:25 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:54:40 +0200, Thomas Zahr
>> <ThomasZahr0503@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I.E_Johansson posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>>David,
>>>>you and Ken are making a hugh mistake believing that an
>>>>assumption from which you start your argumentation in
>>>>anyway could and can be used as proof. What's been done
>>>>from your side as well as from others who believe the VM to
>>>>be a forgery, is to forget that nothing what so ever has
>>>>been put on the table which can be used against VM no
>>>>matter if you refer to anatase - which exists in same size
>>>>in nature for example in parts of Norway, outside a
>>>>monestry in England as well as in two areas in the Alps
>>>>close to monestries; or it's your fictive trying to argue a
>>>>double ink - as long as the ink hasn't been identified,
>>>>AND
>>>>as long as double ink hasn't been proven to exist,
>>>>there is no way anyone using scholarly methods can use that
>>>>against VM! That's basic argumentation methods limits you
>>>>are trying to 'walk over'. You can't.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but all this is besides the point.
>>>
>>>There are two possible scenarios:
>>>
>>>a) the map is authentic
>>>
>>>If the map is authentic, it must be possible to describe the
>>>process followed to produce it, taking all it's properties
>>>into account.
>>
>>
>> Hmm. Would you go so far as to say then that the Great Pyramid is a
>> fake?
>
>
> We have come a long way toward describing 'the process followed
>to produce it' wrt the GP, taking all of its properties into
>account. Along the way, and still today, this effort has involved
>scientific and other investigations in a number of areas, and our
>current understanding is based on the outcomes of those
>investigations. As our knowledge has increased through the
>application of these findings, we have been able to rule out
>certain hypotheses, and most W.A.G.s.

All of which is true but we are still far from being able to describe
the process followed to produce it. I was merely pointing out that
knowing how to reproduce an artifact is not an essential ingredient of
authenticatoin.
>
> IOW, the requirement that it should be possible to describe the
>process by which an artifact was produced is really a requirement
>in principle, not a requirement to be omniscient at the current
>state of the art. In any case, artifacts are generally considered
>authentic unless there is a good reason for caution. As there is
>in the case of the VM, and as there is not in the case of the GP.

Precisely. Even if we knew exactly how to reproduce the VM there would
still remain many valid doubts about its authenticity.
>
> In the case of the VM, ISTM, IMHO, that as investigations have
>occurred, it has become harder to maintain the position that the
>map is an authentic pre-20th century artifact.
>
It seems to be becoming easier to jump to the conclusion that it
isn't. :-)




Eric Stevens

.