Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- From: Philip Deitiker <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:41:22 GMT
Rather that argue around in circles with people who want to debate
trivia rather than what constitutes a good argument I have decided to
set this aside.
Inclusion of irrelevant speculation into a theory or hypothesis.
Scott Wolters and Eric Stevens.
An example is a Templar (c.1362) carved the stone. First off
officially there were no Templar in 1362, but secondarily it
adds no force to the argument other than to further procreate
popular myths. The argument over whether or not secret societies
of Templar loyalist might have existed is a moot point, because
even if they did exist, it has no direct connection to runes
already being used.
Zalar
. . . . .They might have been heading west looking for siberia
after which they walked from . . . . . .
Inger
. . . . .77 ships of King Haakon VI were enroute to . . . . .
We can take these two examples of how not to form a credible
argument. First off neither add anything to the base argument, is the
KRS authentic to its date. The essential problem with the KRS that
must be solved first before anything else is solved are the
following.
1. Where did the unhewn stone come from
2. Where and who carved the stone.
3. When was it carved.
4. When was it transported.
Notice in the 4 above, the meaning of the runes is of no importance
except #2 in identifying the carver.
Once these 4 essential questions are answered with a degree of
certainty then we can ask ourselves questions about motivations and
other activities. If 1 to 4 make the stone authentic, then the
motivations for why the stone was carved can be drawn from the runes.
I will say this, both from the 'naysayer' and 'proponents' point of
veiw, neither groups is especially interested in items 1 to 4, most
of this discussion revolves around emotives. Ohman family guilty or
not as hoaxers, reports that are and are not published, Templar
activity, what happened to the greenland colony, . . . . . . .
None of this has anything to do with the base argument.
Overly defensive postures. And from the viewpoint here Stevens is
overly protective of Wolters, whose reports seems to come and go from
publication.
....'What do you know about the stone?'
Also not a very good debate tactic. The assumption is that Stevens
and Wolters know everything and that there is nothing more that can
be known or that their knowledge is a perfect knowledge. The fact at
any scientist knows is that in handling materials even with the best
intentions, damage can be done, and not every bit of damage can be
traced to when and where it occurred.
What is the exact logical flaw in the argument? The logical flaw is
that of overstated confidence. Randomizing processes, either natural
or manmade would tend, over time to remedy the order to the disorder.
Now unless one is a fantastically skilled at interpreting chaos
theory, this generally means that over time and with repeated
handling events, that the confidence of what the object is (the sum
of all its properties) is lost over time, other properties are
gained.
So how do we play this game.
1. The stone was chiseled with a nail, looks to me that it was
rechiseled after it was finally recovered from the Ohman farm,
probably a heavy cleaning.
2. The stone had mud removed after it was removed from its hole.
The mud may have included stone chips that had flaked away from the
stone.
3. The nature of the root mass. Once again that was evidence that
should have been collected
4. The stone may or may not have been used as an outhouse step, barn
step, etc.
So that as we philosophically examine the stone in its last known
natural context, we have the stone randomizing into nature and nature
randomizing into the stone. Hiesenberg uncertainty tells us that some
information can be totally lost, but that a sizable fraction should
be in reasonable proximity to the stone (brownian motion,
bioturbulation) So that the stone and its context is 'the stone'.
The point seems to be lost on a few individuals here. By removing the
stone from its context one has lost confidence in knowning the
properties of the stone. By subjecting the stone to unknown sets of
procedures one also alters the properties of the stone. One has to
face the fact, even by the best scenario it sat in the corner of a
working barn for a decade.
The issue is not that the stone is carved in 1662 or other dates.
But that it could be from other dates if loose flakes were removed
accidentally. Other changes in meaning might have occurred. This
logic seems to be lost on some people who want to argue ad-nauseum
about trivial issues. The size of the confidence interval expands in
proportion to unknown events or conversely events that might be known
if not the context was removed. Its not a point to be argued, it
would be Einstein arguing with Heisenberg about uncertainty,
primarily no amount of arguing can get rid of the uncertainty as a
result of random processes.
We can extend this one logical step further. The Runic inscriptions
are defined as 'odd'. Being odd could mean they were a hoax by and
unskilled craftsman, or that its a language that is not clearly
understand, again the meaning of the stone feeds into the first
situation in interpreting its meaning with grandious speculation.
From a chemists point of view on this matter. Gold is one of the
more inert metal. We can, at time point 0 fashion pure gold into a
ball or cube, and to the best of our ability in our lifetime protect
that object by carefully placing it on a restive stand in
argon/nitrogen mixture. But at sometime later we die, and the stand
falls over, or the house falls on the stand, and the gold orb gets
dented. Then the house decays into dust, and dust accumulates or the
gold orb sinks in mud or rolls down hill. Eventually it ends up in
rock or being banged up as it rolls down a river bottom to the sea.
Geological activity will crack the buried stone or encrusting
organisms in the sea will coat it, bore through it. Eventually a
asteroid may hit the earth were it lay and smash the object to small
gold flaky particles. Such is the nature of the universe.
Disintegration is not a matter of if, but when and at what rate.
Not only do materials disintegrate, but so do languages, and over
time meaning of old words is lost and new meaning gained. Thus over
time the ability to reconstitute meaning also looses certainty.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- From: Seppo Renfors
- Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- From: Alaca
- Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- Prev by Date: Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
- Next by Date: Re: Sorry! The Phaistos disc.
- Previous by thread: 1507 Waldseemuller map sold
- Next by thread: Re: Some of the Logic of KRS discussion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
