Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Fri, 06 May 2005 02:36:47 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 13:04:04 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> what you regard as "mere pontification with on real substance" is
>>>actually the standard working method of historians, archaeologists and no
>>>doubt many other researchers as well.
>>
>>My observation is that historians, archaeologists etc talk about what
>>they know.
>
>If only....
>
>>What they don't know is treated as mere conditional
>>speculation.
>
>Sort of- but it very often turns out that historians (etc.) have not known
>certain key facts which dramatically alter the meaning of what they do
>know.This is just somehing that they have to live with, because the
>evidence is very often not easily available.

Which is a very good reason why they should not say that something IS
but that it 'might' be. In fact the books I have read describe what
isn't know - 'there are no known letters from Bismark to the Kaiser
for the period between June and November' - and then announce their
speculation.

Your problem is rather like mine with the announcement of the AVM
stone. People have made use of the best evidence there is (Note that
it is not 'no evidence') only to later find that it is wrong.
>
>>>As I said in my last message, what
>>>matters in these fields is the evidence, and as each new piece of
>evidence
>>>becomes available, it must be fitted in to the body of understanding on
>the
>>>subject in question.
>>
>>You seem to be confusing the formation of a speculative hypothesis
>>with actual understanding. This is at the core of many of my
>>objections to what others have written in this news group in the past.
>>The fact that a person develops a strong belief, amounting to
>>certainty, in a hypothesis they have formed does not mean they are
>>correct.
>
>True, but if others can deduce different hypotheses from the same evidence,
>then they should be putting those hypotheses forward for discussion. In the
>case of the Vinland Map ink, hypotheses of a medieval origin are not at all
>easy to defend, because they seem to rely at the very least on extreme
>incompetence by the alleged medieval cartographer.

That's only if you accept the hypothesis that the map has been
manually reinked. :-)
>
>>The fact that one has evidence for the ends of a hypothetical
>>bridge across a gap in the body of knowlege does not make the
>>particular bridge any less hypothetical. There is nothing wrong with
>>putting forward the hypothetical bridge as a working hypothesis but it
>>is a mistake to claim that this is the way things actually are.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "claim that this is the way things are".
>Some claims about the Vinland Map ink are, quite justly, regarded as
>hypotheses- such as my suggestion that the ink was designed to be
>carbon-dated. Others are statements of scientific observation- notably that
>the ink contains titanium, and that where studied in detail this titanium
>is mostly in the form of anatase crystals with certain characteristics of
>shape and size. Others are reasonable extrapolations from such observation-
>for example that there appears to be at least as much titanium underneath
>the black carbon layer as on the exposed yellow-brown surfaces, so it is
>unlikely to be due to recent contamination. The hypothesis that the anatase
>in the ink has come from "medieval" clay has to explain what has happened
>to the vast majority of the kaolinite or equivalent clay mineral. The
>hypothesis that the anatse in the ink has come from "medieval" ilmenite has
>to explain what has happened to the vast majority of the iron etc. The
>hypothesis that the anatase has come from a modern brown/yellow pigment is
>very easy to defend, because it is known that the exact sort of anatase
>crystals found on the Vinland Map can be made by a process which was
>originally designed to create yellow/brown pigment.

You almost tempted me to enter into a discussion there. :-)

Apart from that I will only remark that the objective always was to
produce a white pigment and that the very early (1916 process) HAD to
be used in yellow or brown, simply because they were discoloured by
impurities.
>
>>I have no argument with your account of the general methodology. Where
>>I take issue is with the attribution of certainty to a current
>>understanding based on a body of knowledge riddled with gaps bridged
>>with assumptions and hypotheses.
>
>Few things are truly certain, but in the absence of any hypotheses for a
>medieval origin of the Vinland Map ink which do not require a multiplicity
>of remarkable circumstances, and give the existence of many other
>indications that the map is a 20th century fake, those who believe the map
>to be a fake can justifiably demand that those who believe it to be real
>should produce a better hypothesis.
>
I might try, if I had a better idea of the nature of the ink.



Eric Stevens

.