Re: KRS book: Geology


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0cqtr198drquot46mojmqifl8o54rp304n@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:12:30 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:j7lrr19j5jtqb1umejc9hhd4jecfj5583s@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:58:32 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:it4rr192984l46b52blhajdflq491h53lf@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On 4 Jan 2006 22:04:53 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:44:58 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>> You are asking that the decision as to the best match of the KRS to
>>>>>>> the local greywacke be done not by Ojakangas but by his readers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Eric, he cannot convince his readers that he is correct if he
>>>>>>does not present the evidence supporting his argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that Ojakangas conveyed his opinion to Wolter in a
>>>>> private communication. We are not privy to what was conveyed verbally
>>>>> and it it is not surprising if his written summeary of the results did
>>>>> not conatin the deatil of a formal report.
>>>>
>>>>That speaks pretty "well" for Ojakangas and Wolter. He knows Wolter is
>>>>writing a book, does a study, and communicates his results to Wolter
>>>>privately. The study ends up in Wolter's book with only some of the
>>>>data
>>>>included. Fine science, all that. :(
>>>
>>> See 'Vikings-The North American Saga', p379 bottom of 2nd and top of
>>> 3rd column.
>>
>>The book cites a "Personal Conversation", and does not present the subject
>>of the conversation because the author/publisher of the book does not wish
>>to reveal the name of a person known to have committed forgeries;
>>obviously,
>>they don't want to have to defend a lawsuit even if they will win it.
>
> They especially don't want to defend it, if it has no substance
> whatsoever.

Oh, I'm certain that the person who they have in mind knows that they
believe him to be the author of the Spirit Runestone. So the Smithsonian
clearly does not wish to defend any lawsuit, and can maximize the chance
that one will not be filed by not publishing the name. On the other hand, I
doubt that the Smithsonian has to make up what they published; I think that
they are doing pretty well for themselves without creating false issues.
Can you, on the other hand, say that Wolter and Nielse are doing pretty well
for themselves without creating false issues?

>
> On the one hand you criticise the lack of information contained in
> Ojakangas's personal communication, both the substance and content of
> which can be confirmed, but in the past you have been happy to rely on
> a report of an unconfirmed conversation with an unidentified person
> who made generally unspecified and unconfirmable allegations about yet
> another unidentified person. Aren't you letting your cloak slip a
> little and expose your double standards?

No, not in the slightest. The difference is that:

1. Ojankanga's *oral* personal communication is not what you've reported to
be reproduced in the Wolter/Nielsen book. Ojankanga's *data* is what you've
reported to have been reproduced in the book. If Ojankanga's data is not
all of the data, then either Ojankanga did not give Wolter/Nielsen all of
the data, or he did and they didn't reproduce it all. Either way, someone
has done what should never be done, which is to present less than all of the
data that was adduced so that the conclusion arrived at by a third party is
not based on all the data, but upon a selected version of the data.

2. The oral communication you referenced in the Smithsonian's "Vikings:
The North Atlantic Saga" is all that is reproduced in the book; no selective
presentation of data adduced by the communicator as a result of testing has
been withheld.

>>
>>So what? "Personal Conversations" are cited all of the time. Ojakangas'
>>situation involves much more than a "Personal Conversation" citation, it
>>involves a table of data which incompletely reports all of the data. Did
>>his "Personal Communication" also incompletely report all of the data to
>>Wolter. Or was using less than all of the data Wolter's own bright idea.
>>
>><snip balance of post that demonstrates Stevens' lack of understanding as
>>to
>>why *all* evidence should be reported in a scientific paper/book>
>
> But Ojakangas was writing neither a scientific paper nor a book. But
> I'm sure you know that.

He was conducting a test, purportedly a scientific test. One reports all
data and lets the data speak. One doesn't report less than all of the data
and then allege that all reported data points to a given conclusion. For
example, have you considered the possibility that some of the unreported
data (which you think probably yielded the worst possible match(es) to the
KRS) might indicate such poor match(es) that the testing procedure itself
might be called into question?

Regardless, you are arguing the inarguable. Scientists who gather test data
are bound to report it all. The idea is that others have to be given an
even playing field with respect to (1) reproducing the results and (2)
drawing conclusions from the results. It is clear that you know this to be
the case, because you failed to reply to Daryl Krupa's reply to your railway
station analogy.
>
>
>
> 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: DEFCON 16 and Hacking OpenVMS
    ... To reproduce this, apparently one is to enter exactly 511 characters ... Of course it could even be Alpha chip type ... Sampsa's report of VMS vulnerabilities in the Defcon 16 slides. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: KRS book: Geology
    ... >>>they don't want to have to defend a lawsuit even if they will win it. ... Ojankanga's *oral* personal communication is not what you've reported to ... or he did and they didn't reproduce it all. ... One doesn't report less than all of the data ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: the romance thepoetry
    ... window and report pregnancy to check if we're suitable for ... Women who reproduce for natural purposes by love of man and by ... consentual purpose must be eradicated. ... Ihave a degree in UK and no chilwelfare and used to do sex ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: [opensuse] OpenOfficeWriter 3.1.1
    ... So why don't I report it as a bug. ... I've no idea how to reproduce it. ... so it may not be KDE, it might be Xorg. ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: QC and bugreports
    ... no others in the community could reproduce. ... Often we still do test against older releases if the report has all ... when in fact it may well of been a bug in DELPHI 7. ... 'May' is not acceptable for a 'Fixed' resolution, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)