Re: What's So Important About KRS?


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:34ghc15f1tfeekchml0egkf2r29kg1kq6u@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:26:44 -0500, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:58:19 -0500, Tom McDonald
>>> <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>maison.mousse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Soren Larsen a écrit dans le message
>>>>><42c70931$0$63694$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>george wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>snippage
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is already known that the Scandinavians reached the Americas
>>>>>>>(once)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At least 4 expeditions is known from the sagas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You may add the note about the Markland ship in the Icelandic
>>>>>>annals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>at L'Anse aux Meadows and settled for a few years
>>>>>>>(unsuccessfully)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LAM was most likely a forward operations base not a
>>>>>>settlement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>just as they did in Greenland and Iceland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In what way unsuccesful in Greenland and Iceland?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They stayed in Greenland as long as it was profitable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To claim that the settlement in Iceland was unsuccesful
>>>>>>is simply grotesque.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Soren Larsen
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Some years ago I took a trip aboard a ship from the U.S.A to Europe.
>>>>>The
>>>>>ship went up the east coast
>>>>>of the US before turning east just below Greenland. While in the
>>>>>shadow of
>>>>>Greenland the trip was
>>>>>very smooth. However, once past Greenland and in the open sea it was
>>>>>somewhat of a wild ride until
>>>>>Ireland.
>>>>> The point of that little story is this. Many people seem to have no
>>>>>problem excepting the fact that the
>>>>>Scandinavians (Vikings) had colonies in Iceland (still there) and in
>>>>>Greenland until the
>>>>>cooling of the planet around 1500 but seem to get very upset at the
>>>>>idea
>>>>>that the "Danes et al" could have traveled around the North American
>>>>>continent. It is difficult to imagine the Scandinavians
>>>>>being able to navigate many hundreds of miles through open seas to
>>>>>Iceland
>>>>>and the Greenland
>>>>>but it is not hard to imagine them "day sailing" in protected waters
>>>>>from
>>>>>Greenland to the North American
>>>>>continent. If what is thought to be known about the Vikings boats is
>>>>>true
>>>>>then they could have
>>>>>had no problem sailing from the west tip of Greenland to North America
>>>>>in 24
>>>>>hours. When one
>>>>>compares this type of trip to the one from Iceland to Greenland it
>>>>>would
>>>>>seem likely that the Vikings
>>>>>would have done the "Greenland to N.America run" as recreation if
>>>>>nothing
>>>>>else.
>>>>> My question then is this! What is the reason many people have in
>>>>> not
>>>>>accepting as very likely the presents of the Scandinavians
>>>>> in many parts of North America long before C. Columbus?
>>>>>JL
>>>>
>>>> I do not know, or know of, anyone who "get very upset at the
>>>>idea that the "Danes et al" could have traveled around the North
>>>>American continent." I certainly don't think that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you not yet encountered Philip Deitiker? :-)
>>>
>>> Yes, of course you have.
>>
>> Even he does not deny their *capacity* to do the thing. Too many
>>yea-sayers conflate 'deny such Norse presence is proven' with
>>'deny such Norse could have made the journey.'
>
> You are quite correct.
>>
>> Can you say 'straw man'?
>>
>> I knew you could.
>
> It wasn't really a straw man. I was n't saying that he couldn't accept
> their capacity to ... etc. I was merely making the point that he
> *does* indeed "get very upset at the idea that the "Danes et al" could
> have traveled around the North American continent.".

Standard non sequiter. How do you write that you weren't saying Deitiker
couldn't accept someone's capacity to have done something, and in the next
sentence write that Deitiker gets very upset at the idea?? I believe that
Deitiker gets upset at the illogic of some proposals how things could have
been done, not that they might have been done.

>
> Never mind. Philip is always getting in little digs at me (because I
> don't get upset at the idea .. and want to consider the evidence) and
> I could resist the opportunity you gave me.

Are you being overly pompous here, or overly pious? Let's take a poll.

It isn't that anyone here begrudges you the desire to "consider the
evidence." It's that your consideration always reflects an enormous bias in
a given direction. No matter how silly or illogical a position you take
(and you've taken some silly/illogical ones, such as the KRS being a message
to the missing Greenland colonists that that the KRS party was searching
for), you'll always take the position that unless someone proves the
position untenable to a 100% certainty, then it's still "possible." On the
other hand, no matter how sparse a piece of evidence that seems to tilt a
discussion in the direction of your bias, you'll jump on it with both feet,
without waiting for confirmation of its validity. Witness your post re the
so-called AVM runestone. Contrast that with your position on the Larsson
runes; all anyone ever said was that they show that the KRS could have been
carved circa 19th century, notwithstanding the unfamiliarity with some of
its runes allegedly displayed by late 19th/early 20th century "experts" on
runes. You were unwilling to concede that the Larsson runes put paid to
that argument (which is really all that they definitively prove), dredging
up all kinds of squink re Masons and runes, and remain today unwilling to
concede that if nothing else, the Larsson runes show that the KRS might have
been carved in the 19th century. You post scathing criticisms of certain
people whom you allege have taken biased (and dishonest) positions re the
KRS, such as Hall. Yet you resist criticisms of Nielsen and Wolter; the
latter certainly appears to be headed off the deep end because a relatively
simple proposition advanced by him (test the age of the inscription, show
that it could not have been carved circa 19th century has now devolved into
a discussion of the Templars).

>>
>>>
>>>> What people I know and know of want is valid evidence of such an
>>>>expedition, or expeditions. So far, the evidence is just not
>>>>there. I am aware of much, possibly most, of the claimed evidence
>>>>for pre-Columbian Scandinavian presence in the middle of North
>>>>America. There is a lot of it.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that none of it has come from normal,
>>>>well-conducted and well-analylized archaeological contexts. Nada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the problem is that most of the stuff which hints at possible
>>> norse presence is based on random finds with many of them being of
>>> doubtful reliability - aka 'fakes'.
>>
>> That's what I think based on what I know now.
>
> No argument there.
>>
>>> The rest of the problem is that
>>> potentially valid evidence is variously, denied, denigrated or
>>> demolished by earthmoving machinery.
>>
>> Most of what is 'denied' by scientists is the validity of the
>>known fakes. I suppose some bits that may be valid evidence of
>>the Norse thingie (N.T. from now on) are denied by many due to
>>the way yea-sayers have presented them. Archies are human.
>>Calling them names, belittling their science, accusing them of
>>racism; I can understand throwing the notional baby out with the
>>grimy bathwater.
>
> It works both ways. Its only human to call people names if they refuse
> to properly look at the evidence before calling it fake. This is 90%
> of the trouble with the KRS.

Yet you allegedly remain firmly on the fence regarding authenticity. That
fact must meas that there is no *convincing* evidence tending to show that
it's authentic. Since the burden of proof of authenticity rests with those
who propose authenticity, it is hardly unreasonable for people to take the
position that the default position of fake remains the "best bet." Which is
what most people who post on the topic and are skeptical of the authenticity
of the KRS believe. Trying to paint a picture that all of (are even more
than a sparse handfull of) the skeptics "refuse to properly look at the
evidence (and who, pray tell, gets to define "properly"??) is a serious
exaggeration.

>>
>> What is denigrated is generally worthy of denigration.
>>
>> Anymore, stuff is less often than before demolished than before,
>>and more often brings in the archaeologists. Not often enough;
>>but bulldozers do have their place in discovery.
>>
>>> However, I suspect there is still
>>> significant quantity waiting to be properly identified.
>>
>> Would you put this personal opinion of yours in the category of,
>>say, the LAM investigations? Of course not.
>
> I would put it in the same position of the LAM investigations in, say,
> 1935.
>>
>> This is one of those 'where do you stand' questions, and is
>>interesting in a subjective way. However, it isn't more than
>>opinion.
>>
>>>
>>>> L'anse aux Meadows is accepted as Norse because the archaeology
>>>>supports it. (This being an *archaeology* newsgroup, I think it
>>>>fair that we give at least a nod towards archaeology as being of
>>>>some use in these discussions.) Archaeology does not support
>>>>other Norse presence. Yet. Some is very intriguing (e.g.: Lee's
>>>>work on Norse vs. Inuit occupation of a high arctic site).
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Lee was almost destroyed professionally before he died.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you misunderstand the situation. You seem to think that
>>>>the opposition is to the idea that Norse could have been running
>>>>around North America before Mr. C.; and that resistance is based
>>>>on thinking that they were not capable of doing so. You also seem
>>>>to be swayed by the claimed Norse material without decent
>>>>archaeological context.
>>>>
>>>> The first is a misunderstanding of the facts; we know the Norse
>>>>were capable of doing what you seem to think they did. The second
>>>>is a misunderstanding of the science; we don't make scientific
>>>>judgments based on unverified data.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, in the absence of data, many people seem prepared to
>>> make very positive negative judgements when a 'show me the evidence'
>>> is the correct response.
>>
>> For ***'s sake; the minority opinion in science nearly always
>>results in casualties before it is accepted, if it is accepted,
>>*by being supported in later investigations*.
>
> Why are you getting upset? I'm not. I'm merely stating it as a
> regretable fact. I wasn't even making the point to which you
> responded. I'll use the subject of this thread as an example.
>
> I've already said many times that I don't believe the KRS is
> authentic. Some people think that means I must think it is a fake.
> Well, I don't think that either. What it means is that I have put it
> on the back burner and I will allow it to simmer along gently on its
> own unless some new information comes along to throw into the pot. Too
> many people seem unable to do this and, to them, if I'm not for it,
> I'm agin it, or more often the other way around. I've got many things
> bubbling away on the back of the metaphorical stove and I get more fun
> finding more ingredients to throw into the pot than I do from the
> (half) baking competition which some of the more vociferous
> subscribers to s.a seem to think is the purpose of it all.

The current importance of the KRS is simply this:

It demonstrates how some are willing to totally distort (and in some
instances fabricate) evidence to advance their position.

It demonstrates how people are willing to disregard logic in general, and
logical principles such as Occam's Razor in particular, when they cut
against a preconceived desired result.

The KRS may well turn out to be important; if it's ever shown to be
authentic, it will definitely cause some rethinking of the history of Norse
exploration and it may turn out to require some rethinking vis-a-vis the
Native Americans. If it is ever definitively shown to be a fake, it will be
as important as the Piltdown Man in the sense of teaching yet another object
lesson regarding the necessity for objectivity in scientific investigation,
as well as yet another lesson in how to approach the question of burden of
proof in a scientific investigation.


>>ck of a mechanism; when
>>one was discovered and supported, P.T. was accepted with
>>reasonable alacrity. This example can be multiplied many times.
>
> The interesting thing about Wegener was that his theory of continental
> drift was accepted by paleontolgists some 30 years before geologists
> came up with plate tectonics to explain it. When it first appeared, it
> solved problems for the paleontologists while making life difficult
> for the geologists.
>>
>> What comes to mind is the Sagan brilliance: "They laughed at
>>Galileo; they laughed at Einstein; but they also laughed at Bozo
>>the Clown."
>
> Which seems to say that the laughter of the masses is not the
> criterion to use when judging concepts (unless you are a deliberate
> clown, of course).
>
> ------ snip -----
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>

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


.

Quantcast