Re: The Vinland Map's Ink


"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0Ydee.39285$c42.27938@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:jlnf71lmtgrqivf9fpjudrg6nm4k59ui3h@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
>> How will you ever *know* that you have all the information??
>>
>> I'll answer the question myself: You'll *know* that you have all the
>> information when the information reaches a conclusion that you or your
>> client (not necessarily the same thing) want to reach.
>
> Steve,
>
> I don't find evidence for this allegation. AFAICS, Eric appears to be the
> consummate professional in his business dealings.

Tom, I don't find any evidence for that allegation. :) We simply have
Eric's word on how he conducts his business dealings, and his statements
that he brings the same sort of analytical tools and constraints that he
uses in his professional life to the issues he discusses on sci.archaeology.
If his statement is true, then he ought to be reaching the same generic type
of conclusions on a matter he is looking at professionally as he does to
matters he looks at on sci.archaeology.

Eric has spent a week of squinking about how he "doesn't have enough
information", particularly about the ink, to reach a conclusion re the
Vinland Map. I submit that there is plenty of evidence out there, including
some evidence re the ink, even if no one has published a detailed analysis
re the composition of the ink on the VM. Naturally, any such conclusion
would be, and always is, "tentative", new evidence can always be adduced on
the matter. The degree to which a conclusion is tentative is related to
whether how likely one feels that it is that new evidence will come to light
on the matter. **In this, archaeology, and indeed any scientific inquiry,
is not unique; the same is true of an investigation into the facts of a
legal matter, and an investigation into the facts of an accident.**

My post was intended to convey the logical conclusion that if Eric really
believes that one can never reach a conclusion because all the evidence is
not in, (as Eric claims to be unable to reach even a tentative conclusion re
the VM), then one can never reach a certain conclusion about anything, and
that would apply to Eric's professional matters as well. Of course that
cannot be; clients won't pay for a report that states that "on the available
evidence, which is voluminous, X is the conclusion, but of course I cannot
state that conclusion X is absolute or certain since new evidence might show
up six months from now." One alternative is to render a report to the
client just as soon as one has "enough" evidence to tell the client what
he/she wants to hear. The other alternative is that Eric would never do
that in his professional life, and would honestly, report to his clients
*the* conclusion he has reached after adducing all the evidence on a matter
*that can be adduced at the present time*, for better or worse, knowing that
as a scientist his conclusion might be subject to further review in light of
newly discovered evidence. I actually believe the latter alternative to be
the case, and that Eric is simply squinking on sci.arachaeology re how he
handles evidence and conclusions professionally. In other words, he would
report a conclusion to a client that were based upon as much evidence as he
currently has re the bona fides of the VM, and both he and the client would
understand (in the client's case, the client would be made to understand)
that the conclusion is based upon a given quantum of evidence, and could
change if and when new evidence comes to light.

>Of course, we only have his e-presence to judge from; but he seems very
>consistent to me. The only thing I can recall that mars his objectivity
>here was his reaction to the announcement of the fake AVM stone.

His adoption and/or advocacy of all sorts of crackpottery on a variety of
issues stands together with his immediate adoption of the AVM stone.

>
> He gets lumped in with Johansson and Seppo (very unfairly, IMNSHO) because
> of his propensity to require, as David pointed out, a level of evidence
> that is very nearly never present in archaeology.

And my point was, and remains, that in "real life", the level of evidence
that Eric requires is sometimes not present either.

> And his tenacity, come to that, in defending that propensity. He has
> explained why he doesn't often take exception to the above-named worthies,
> and I for one believe him. He has recently talked truth to powder wrt the
> anatase business. I'd like to see more of this; but that's his choice.

And the truth about anatase is, essentially by itself, compelling with
respect to a conclusion about the VM. If one doesn't think that such
conclusion, if stated simply and directly, would be recognized as being
"tentative", then one has the option to employ the adjective expressly. To
state that there isn't enough evidence, as of this date and time, to believe
that the VM is likely a fake, then telling mor uns like Seppo that they are
wrong vis-a-vis anatase per se is an exercise in doing precisely what? The
importance of the "truth" about anatase, at least with respect to
sci.archaeology, is its implications for the truth about the VM.

>
> I don't think his actual tentative assessments of most of the stuff we
> discuss is very different from yours, or from mine. If someone put a gun
> to his head, I think you'd find that out. (Please, do not attempt this at
> home, or in NZ!) But whatever the case, I don't see the point in
> questioning Eric's professional integrity.

As I hope is clear from the above, I really wasn't questioning his
professional integrity. I was questioning his treatment of claims as
reflected in his posts on sci.archaeology reflect the same standards that he
brings to his professional work. I doubt it; else he could not work
professionally, any more than I could claim that I never accept a conclusion
(or reach a conclusion) compelled re an archaeological matter because the
evidence is never complete enough, and that's the same standard I would
bring to analyzing a legal matter in real life.

>
> <snip>
> --
> Tom McDonald
> http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evidence of identity for conveyencing
    ... I can however assure you that there are some solicitors who will ... evidence of identity to establish that the client is that person or ... obtaining it) that the client is the person he or she claims to be. ... documents offered are originals to guard against forged or counterfeit ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: "Fair (hah) and Balanced (giggle)"
    ... where a conviction *can* be obtained. ... than the guilty plea normally entered in the former ... defense is much more of a factor than how much evidence there is ... guilty if they can't convince their client of the situation. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Children In Need
    ... >>steveNOSPAMfreestone2005NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: ... >>That doesn't matter in the scheme of things, ... please give me evidence that it is true. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho.moderated)
  • county court proceedings
    ... I am currently suing a client of mine who owes me tens of thousands of ... in order to secure a winning result we ... person to give evidence. ... The witness is our clients estranged wife. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Children In Need
    ... >steveNOSPAMfreestone2005NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: ... >That doesn't matter in the scheme of things, ... please give me evidence that it is true. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho.moderated)