Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On 24 Dec 2005 00:04:28 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>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.

The thesis is that it was more than 200 years old when found. That
thesis is not untested in that there is a myriad of gravestone
observations which seem to bear this out.

> That notion is speculation, nothing more, until
>work has been presented demonstrating that
>that notion is probably a reliable interpretation of reality.

The report is around. I have a copy.

> 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.

That's twice that this statement has been made in this news group. Are
you merely helping to start another canard running or do you have
knowledge and evidence of unnatural weathering processes which 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

You are slowly coming into line with Scott Wolter.
>
>is not reliable until those un-natural weathering processes can
>be excluded as agents of the weathering on the KRS.

What are these mysterious unnatural weathering processes?

---- snip -----

At this point I realised just how much more there is to this article.
I'm not going to bother going through it dealing with it snip by snip.
The truth of the matter is that you don't know anything worth a damn
about the work of Wolter and Nielsen but that won't stop you writing
screeds of speculative criticism. I prefer to deal with people who
actually know what it is they are talking about.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... >>> is that a weathering comparison was used to date the inscription ... >> graywacke is a sedimentary rock; ... as slate is produced from shale. ... >> The KRS is best described as metagraywacke, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A tailor and the KRS
    ... as to the weathering history of the KRS ... surfaces of the KRS ... versus the inscribed sides and the inscriptions. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A tailor and the KRS
    ... as to the weathering history of the KRS ... surfaces of the KRS ... versus the inscribed sides and the inscriptions. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A tailor and the KRS
    ... as to the weathering history of the KRS ... surfaces of the KRS ... versus the inscribed sides and the inscriptions. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >> The notion that the inscription on the KRS can be said to be ... >>based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics ... weathered surfaces on the KRS, ... >>is not due to any other agent than natural weathering processes. ...
    (sci.archaeology)