Re: KRS book: Geology

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:05:25 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>"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 ...

Certain? Not even 'on the preponderance of the evidence', not 'the
balance of probabilities' but 'certain'? My goodness you are easily
convinced when the argument leans in the direction you favour.

> ... 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?

With you around, nobody is free from the risk of 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.

The key data in this case is Ojakangas's opinion as to the most likely
origin of the greywacke for the KRS.
>
>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.

Hell! It's all been withheld, except for a completely unconfirmable
opinion.
>
>>>
>>>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?

You don't know what Ojakangas was doing. You don't know what he was
asked by Wolter. You can't possibly know whether his answer was
adequate or not.
>
>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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KRS book: Geology
    ... Can you, on the other hand, say that Wolter and Nielse are doing pretty well ... 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: Justifiable killing?
    ... the truth (as news report rarely are). ... All involved appear to be criminals, ... I defended only what the law states, however, I may defend the ... what do you mean by The Bigger Picture? ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Japan military should defend US forces
    ... Japan should allow its military to defend US forces in order to protect itself from North Koreas missiles, a two-time defence minister said on... ... U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully ... with our laws this report cannot be provided in ... Military News and Information Editor ...
    (soc.culture.japan)
  • Re: How are the women of the US using guns to defend themselves against rape/sexual assault?
    ... Criminal Victimization Survey report there were ... but let's give the gun defense option its best chance. ... defend themselves against much stronger attackers. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: "Fair (hah) and Balanced (giggle)"
    ... If Britons are in fact allowed to defend ... to draw it to defend himself from a carjacking. ... The newspapers didn't report it; they very seldom report defensive gun ... Lack of news reports proves nothing. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
Quantcast