Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kcj8r11qr3tn646cd8k9kjcfmhfc79u2ge@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:45:02 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- snip ----
>
>>>>> There are two points here. First, without going back and checking on
>>>>> the details, I can't tell you which characters are vital to what
>>>>> system of coding.
>>>>
>>>>Well, one reading and evaluating the Wolter/Nielsen book would be
>>>>expected
>>>>to have taken note of that little detail.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because it's critical to the logic of the situation. Or don't you believe
>>that a hypothesis (particularly one that hasn't otherwise been established
>>by independent evidence) ought to be subjected to a test of whether or not
>>it's logical?
>
> Taking note is one thing. Learning it by heart so that one can give an
> immediate answer is another.

But you have appeared to do neither. It seems to me that taking note is not
asking too much of the reader. Then again, my training includes how to read
things for critical content.

>>
>>Thus, if one put forth observations regarding the speed of light and then
>>hypothesized that it could not not be exceeded, one might expect that the
>>hypothesis could be criticized as being counterintuitive and illogical.
>>If
>>one supported the hypothesis by mathematical analysis that confirmed it,
>>the
>>hypothesis would certainly be stronger.
>>
>>Here, Wolter/Nielsen have put forth a hypothesis (at least insofar as
>>you've
>>reported it) that appears to have serious logical flaws in it, and these
>>flaws exist at different levels. It seems to me that a reader approaching
>>their book with an open mind ought to be reading critically enough to
>>discern key data which ought to have been available to them to support
>>their
>>hypothesis, and whether such data has been or has not been reported and
>>examined by them.
>>
>>But that's just me. Feel free to claim that you have read the book less
>>than critically, but nevertheless feel comfortable defending the
>>Wolter/Nielsen hypotheses against all comers.
>
> I gave a quick account of the substance of the book. Because I did not
> disparage it you have assumed that I must be defending it. The idea of
> impartiality seems foreign to your thought processes.

LOL. You've been reacting to essentially any post questioning
Wolter/Nielsen's findings or hypotheses by defending the findings or
hypothesis in question. I am merely pointing out some things that you've
reported from the book that do not "compute" logically. But it was *you*
who wrote, in this very thread:

"I try to be impartial but I know very well that I am not."

>>
>>>
>>> I would expect that to occur in the 2nd pass, presuming that that was
>>> an aspect of immediate interest.
>>>
>>
>>It's a key point. Therefore, by definition it is of immediate interest,
>>and
>>should have been something that a critical, open minded reader looked at
>>on
>>the first reading.
>
> There are lots of key points, as you will find when you have read the
> book.

How would you know, since you seem to feel that it's okay that at least one
of them escaped you on the first reading. Can one expect that they've all
escaped you ?

>>
>>>>If characters that are not vital
>>>>to the system of coding could be changed to corrupt the message on the
>>>>KRS
>>>>in a way that might be meaningful (changing a location or the length of
>>>>a
>>>>journey, etc.) then it would seem that the theory advanced by
>>>>Wolter/Nielsen
>>>>doesn't stand up to simple logic analysis.
>>>>
>>>>But of course, you really are interested in accepting Wolter/Nielsen at
>>>>their word, rather than objectively analyzing both the book, and the
>>>>chances
>>>>of the KRS actually being real.
>>>
>>> My original article was the result of my first reading of the book. I
>>> posted it for information, not as a critical review.
>>
>>And your subsequent posts? Lined up four-square behind Wolter/Nielsen.
>
> Eh?

What part of the two questions above do you purport to not understand?
You've reacted to every post that's pointed out that there seem to be some
problems with the logic of the material that you've posted by defending that
material.

>
>>Mind you, I understand that you are not not impartial in this matter.
>
> Your understanding is faulty.

Really. What then is the meaning of the last line of this post, which *you*
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/e514803c8ef57cd5?dmode=source&hl=en

or the shorter version:

http://tinyurl.com/bou9p
>
> --- more nit-picking snipped ---
>
>
>
> 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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: She is getting on for seventy
    ... Richard Yates wrote: ... That was what I thought it meant, on first reading. ... (I'm not defending ... SML, near Seattle ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Time and place in the breakout novel
    ... of my novel. ... There are a fair number of things which a reader can put ... together from what is there but probably won't, at least the first time ... part way through the first reading, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)