Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 18:06:22 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
<snip>
> > But your requirement for proof just gets back to the old
> >"Show that what you say is true" / "No, you show that what I say
> >is _not_ true, and if you can't then that means that what I say is
> >true"
> >altercation that can just as easily be applied to psychopathic ranting
> >as to
> >the speculations of materials engineers.
>
> I would have thought that in a 'sci' group of any kind it would long
> ago have been accepted that you can never prove that something is
> true. All you can do is post a hypothesis and show that it is
> consistent with what is known. It is ridiculous for the opposition to
> ask that the proponent 'prove' that something is true. When all the
> facts are known its up to the opposition to falsify the argument.

I agree with what you say about 'proof of a hypothesis'.
But I did not use the word 'proof', but rather the less-restrictive
word
'show'.
All that I would expect would be a convincing demonstration
that what one claims is probably true.
It the response to a request for such a demonstration ('showing')
is a counter-request for a demonstration falsifying one's claims,
then no-one is further ahead than when the initial claim was made.
The notion that the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics
still has only the status of an un-tested hypothesis.
That notion is speculation, nothing more, until
work has been presented demonstrating that
that notion is probably a reliable interpretation of reality.
That work has not been presented, therefore
the probability that
that notion is a reliable interpretation of reality
is unknown.
The value of that notion is unknown.
It needs more work before it can be taken seriously.

> > To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS
> >was artificially weathered, I must in return ask you to show that the
> >KRS
> >was _not_ artificially weathered.
>
> Which is a waste of time as you should know.

No, it is a necessary requirement in a test of the reliability of
the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics.

That notion assumes that the weathering on the KRS
is not due to any other agent than natural weathering processes.
Un-natural weathering processes are known to have been applied
to the KRS.
Therefore the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics

is not reliable until those un-natural weathering processes can
be excluded as agents of the weathering on the KRS.
One must limit the variables under consideration;
the complex of multiple factors and multiple possible histories
of the KRS cannot be un-ravelled by ignoring part of the problem.

> > "Automatic gain-saying of what the other person says is not an
> >argument."
> >- Col. Graham Chapman (deceased)
>
> Then why employ the method.

I don't know for sure, but it has been used in the past as
an attempt to deflect annoying or dangerous criticism.

> >> >But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
> >> >If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
> >> >of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
> >> >mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
> >> >the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
> >> >additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
> >> >marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
> >> >known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
> >
> > Indeed, if the only evidence of their age is that they are older than
> >a photograph dated to 1899, then that does not mean that they were
> >created at the same time as was the inscription.
> > That sort of dating control does not rule out the possibility that
> >they were created at the same time as the runes were cleaned out,
> >after the discovery.
>
> The 'cleaning out' marks are readily distinguishable so it may be
> possible to show that the various newly identified markings predate
> the cleaning.

Yes (and equally possible to show that they postdate the cleaning),
but it might not be possible to show
by how much time they pre-date the cleaning.

> As far as the general weathering of the markings is concerned, that is
> a matter which can be resolved by further examination.

<ahem> I would rather say 'might be resolved' by further examination.
The problem might also be insoluble.

> > And if they are visible in an 1899 photo, why would Wolters, et al.
> >say that they were previously undiscovered?
>
> Very simple. Many of the markings change the meaning of the runes and
> for more than a century the runes have been discussed on the basis
> that the marks are not there. Quite literally, nobody seems to have
> seen them

Hmmmm ... yet more lack of dating control of
alterations to the surface of the KRS ...
given the fairly-large number or persons strongly interested in
their examinations of the surface of the KRS, I do not consider
this supposedly universal ignorance to be a condition to be accepted
without further demonstration of the reasons for such
surprisingly universal ignorance.

> > "It is a puzzlement."
> >- Gilbert O'Sullivan (extent of animality unknown)
> >
> >> He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
> >> he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
> >> weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
> >> exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
> >> weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation.
> >
> > Fine. So, how long does it take natural weathering processes to
> >create the sort of exfoliation that has been observed?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > If that timeline can't be determined, then weathering cannot be used
> >to determine the age of the KRS.
>
> Oh but it can. Wolters has examined weathering of similar

.... but not necessarily identical or usefully comparable ...

> mica

.... of one of the various and several types and sub-types of mica ...

> on

.... dissimilar ...

> tombstones

.... from far, far away in a different weathering environment ...

> of an

.... unweighted ...

> average of 200 years

.... with an unknown statistical error range ...

> . Their mica has weathered,
> started to exfoliate and deposit rust stains around them. In the case
> of the KRS the mica and rust stains have almost entirely gone.

'Gone' implies former existence.
In the unique case of the KRS, one can only say that such stains are
not in evidence.
I believe that there is a legal principle regarding assuming facts
not in evidence ...

> Clearly
> the KRS is much more weathered than the tombstones. Wolters has not
> attempted to extraoplate the tombstone weathering to estimate the age
> of the KRS weathering. All he is prepared to say is that the KRS
> weathering is more than 200 years.

No, that is exactly an estimate of the age of the KRS weathering.
Wolter has estimated that the age of the KRS weathering is
more than 200 years.
If I take my car to a mechanic and he says that repair will cost
more than 200 dollars, then he has just given me
an estimate of the cost of the repair.
If he says that the repair will take
more than 2 weeks, then he has just given me
an estimate of the age of its stay in the repair shop.
If he says that he has not changed the oil in my car for
more than two years, then he has just given an estimate of
the age of the oil in my car.
Woilter has exactly extrapolated from
his tombstone-weathering-examination conclusions
to estimate the age of the KRS.

I am confused as to the meaning of the words 'estimate' and
'extrapolate',
as used above.

> > And yet, the matter is not as simple as that, even.
> > Riddle me this:
> > Once the surface has been aritificially mechanically weathered,
> >how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
> >using only "natural" forces?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
>
> You are starting to both fantasize and speculate about something you
> literally know nothing about. I say that you know nothing about it for
> the simple reason that to my knowledge you have seen virtually none of
> the micrographs etc of the KRS. You are asking me to engage in a
> hypothetical argument about unspecified material. Apart from that, I'm
> not a geologist/geochemist and am not qualified to carry out a
> specialist discussion on the subject with you.

I'm not asking for that.
I'm just trying to point out some of the
variables of unknown quantity that have to be investigated
before the notion that
the inscription on the KRS can be said to be
dated to a certain set of range of ages
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics

can be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality.
Absent such investigation,
the probability that
that notion is a reliable interpretation of reality
is unknown.
Nobody is an authority on this subject.
Wolter's assertions
cannot be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality
until he has established himself as an authority on this subject.
As he has only done some preliminary investigations,
Wolter's assertions
cannot yet be accepted as a reliable interpretation of reality.

> > After the surface has been artificially chemically weathered,
> >how much time is required to produce the observed weathering effects
> >using only "natural" forces?
> > Three hundred years? Three years? Three weeks? Three days?
> > Both these artificial weathering processes have been known to have
> >occurred. It has not been shown the observed weathering occurred
> >prior to the application of the known artificial weathering processes,
> >so
> >it has not been shown that the observed weathering is the result of
> >purely natural forces, so the problem for Wolter, et al. is to show
> >that
> >the observed weathering was not "faked".
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. What artificial weathering is known to
> have occurred? Is this your generic term for the various attempts at
> cleaning of the surface?

Yes, the cleaning of the surface, both chemically and mechanically,
along with exposure to other materials not found in the area before
European settlement. (E.g., the excreta of domesicated animals
originating in Europe.)

> > The onus is upon them to show that
> >processes that are known to have occurred are
> >less likely agents of creation of
> >the observed physical character of the KRS than
> >processes that have not been demonstrated to have occurred.
>
> Hang on a minute. You know something about these things yourself.
> Why can't you explain how the various processes may have
> accelerated the weathering of the surface of the KRS?

I didn't say that I couldn't explain that.
But I don't need to:
the purpose of the application of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS was to
remove material on the surface of the KRS
and change the appearance of the surface of the KRS.
I.e., the purpose of the appplication of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS was to
artificially weather the surface.
The extent and character of the weathering effects of
some of the artificial weathering processes to the KRS
must be excluded before
the extent and character of the natural weathering effects
can be determined.
What is being examined is the summmary effect of
a complex set of weathering variables, some definitely
artificial, some natural, and some (natural or artificial)
with only a possible, unproven, effect upon the KRS.
The examination of the weathering of the KRS must be
limited to single variables, or small sets of variables,
hoping to eliminate some of them from consideration, before
general conclusions as to the age of the inscription on the KRS
based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics

can be confidently attempted.

> > As an analogy, if I am told that the lines in my face are
> >the result of many centuries of exposure to cosmic radiation,
> >I must retort that my tobacco habit is a much-more-likely
> >explanation, and that the onus is on the cosmic-ray enthusiast to
> >prove me wrong, _not the other way 'round_.
> >
> >> There is more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
> >> and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
> >> have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
> >> natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
> >> in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.
> >
> > No, the requirement would be to not have any iron-staining remaining
> >after the artificial weathering process.
> > To satisfy that requirement, one need only weather the mica
> >in such as way as to not leave any iron-staining at all.
> > There is no need to remove iron-staining if it never existed.
> > The above requirement does not stand as being a necessary proof,
> >unless it is shown that such iron-staining is the necessary outcome of
> >any and all possible artificial weathering processes.
> > Rather, it is more in the nature of a false analogy.
>
> It's not a false analogy but I take your point that the iron stain
> eventually disappears. But by then a pronounced weathering crust has
> formed and this too has to be faked. I know that Wolters remarked
> about the crust somewhere in the book. How do you propse to do that?

I'm not sure, but then "a pronounced weathering crust" is not
a detailed description,
so I'm at a loss as to speculate on how to produce it.
But then, we go back to the old problem of relating such
a weathering crust to the inscription:
so far as I know, it has not been demonstrated that
the grooves of the inscription have developed such a weathering crust,
rather than simply having been carved into such a crust.
If the grooves of the inscription have developed such a weathering
crust,
then they are older than such a weathering crust.
If the grooves of the inscription were simply carved into such a
crust,
then they are younger than such a weathering crust.
How much older or younger the grooves of the inscription would be
would not be determined by a determination of the age of such a crust,
_unless one assumes that the formation of the grooves and
the initiation of formation of the crust were contemporaneous_,
in which case
the grooves of the inscription would be the same age as such as crust.
As near as I can tell, this is what Wolter has assumed, but
I have not seen a specific statement of that assumption,
so I can't be sure about that.
It does seem to me that Wolter is assuming that
the carving of the inscription is contemporaneous with
the creation of the surface into which they were carved,
which would mean that the inscription is as old as
the weathering of the surface into which they were carved, but as
that contemporaneity has not been proven,
an estimate of the age of the weathering of
the surface into which the inscription was carved
does not necessarily date the inscription, other than to
give a maximum age for the inscription.
Ergo, unless it can be shown that
the inscription is of the same age as
the surface into which it was carved, then
Wolter's estimate of more-than-200-years
for the surface into which it was carved only tells us that
the inscription is less-than-more-than-200-years old,
which isn't a useful estimate to me.

> Bear in mind the artificial crust has to be indistinguishable from a
> natural crust under an electron microscope with EDX and all the other
> fancy tools.

Taking that as a given, has it been shown that
such a pronounced weathering crust exists
under the grooves of the inscription?
Also, has it been shown that the crust is different on
the various faces of the stone,
e.g.. the rough backside vs. the planar frontside,
such that it relects the different durations of weathering of
presumably thousands-of-years-old rough surfaces
vs. presumably anthropogenic smooth surfaces?
I.e., when Wolter refers to "a pronounced weathering crust",
is he referring to a uniform crust over all the surface of the KRS
(easier to fake),
or is he referring to only part of the surface of the KRS
(more difficult to fake differing degrees of pronouncement of
weathering),
and if so,
which part of the surface, or which part of the crust, or which crust?
And what, exactly, is meant by "pronounced"? Would that be
deep, thick, colourful, sharp, rugose, glossy, or just
more-than-something-else?
"A pronounced weathering crust" is not nearly specific enough a
description, given the obvious heterogeneity of the surface of the KRS.

I can't really comment on it intelligently.

<snip a bit about cosmic rays and un-named experts>

> > i'm not trying to be obstreperous, as i hope you realise,
> >but i hope that i have shown you that some of the
> >"prove that I's wrong" arguments are not sufficient responses to
> >those asking for proof of as-yet-unfounded claims.
>
> It seems to me that you are raising entirely speculative objections to
> technical conclusions without ever having looked at any details of the
> argument. That you have at this early stage said that you are not
> interested in learning more (by buying the book) gives due weight to
> your arguments.

I said that I was not not interested in reading the book based on
your comments on the depth and detail of the arguments therein
re: weathering analysis.
I had thought, from what you had initially reported at the beginning
of this thread, that there was not much detail to consider, or at any
rate, that little new information had been presented.
Most of my objections are related to weaknesses of the arguments I
have seen so far,
(I don't mean your own arguments, Eric, which I find to be cogent and
consistent)
inasmuch as they do not take into account several complications and
inconveniences.
The arguments that I have seen so far are too simplistic to
allow one to presume that the notions that they support confidently
reflect reality.

> > Thank you for reviewing Wolter's book for me.
> > I am now secure in the reasonable supposition that
> >Wolter has no convincing arguments to present
> >regarding using weathering to securely date
> >the inscription on the KRS.
>
> I'm glad you think I've confirmed that you were right. Life would be
> easy if we could all reach valid conclusions without going to the
> trouble of first obtaining the facts.

Yahbut, Yahbut, I still haven't seen that there has been an effort to
narrow down the problem of relating observations of weathering of
[whatever] to the KRS inscription itself.
As near as I can tell, investigations are still in the preliminary
stages, and I await a progress report. I don't see any mention of
progress. So I think that it's reasonable to avoid putting out my money
for more-of-the-same.
What I'd really like to see is publication of results in somebody
else's venue;
a professional journal would be acceptable.

> >If he had such, he would present them,
> >Shirley.
> >
> Shirley?

Okay, I'll stop calling you, Shirley ... <G>, <g>-<g>-<g> <g> .

Really, I'm sorry if I caused you consternation,
Daryl

.

Quantcast