Correct info re Wolter's academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.

"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1d80f$0$58490$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Tom McDonald wrote:  s2gEf.126$234.115@xxxxxxxx,
>  > Tedd Jacobs wrote:
> >> "Tom McDonald" wrote...
>
> >>> Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
> >>> understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
> >>> KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
> >>> the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
> >>> information about the original email's recipient and other
> >>> personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------
> >>> Begin Wolter's email:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM Subject:
> >>>> Spirit Pond Investigation &
> >>>> Peer Review
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear -- -- ,
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
> >>>> to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
> >>>> perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
> >>>> stones.  The first point is relative to --'s comment
> >>>> about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
> >>>> performed and reported in our book.  The fact of the matter of
> >>>> is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
> >>>> senior geologists and geological engineers.
>
> >> in what journal was this geologic work published.
>
> > I don't know whether it was so published or not. That does not
> > mean that Wolter's geological work on the KRS didn't receive
> > adequate review prior to his making it public.
> >
> > Wolter isn't an academic, and he is apparently used to having
> > his work critiqued in the way he outlined--getting feedback from
> > other professionals in the relevant field(s). He gave the names
> > of eight folks who he says read and replied to his work on the
> > KRS in writing; and the looking-in-to by the Swedes.
> >
> > It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However,
> > that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of
> > a professional study, or to point out problems with the work.
>
> There is such a thing as project management,
> with a lot of interim reports and feedback.
> I am also used to work with advisory commissions.
> If the commission is competent, the result is a
> reliable, peer-reviewd, report.
>
> > It is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
> > competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
> > is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
> > to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
> >
> > However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
> > evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
> > could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
> > Mather, of course).
>
> But, looking at what is presented and discussed here
> in the group, the peers were not influential enough.
>
>
> [...]
>
> --
> º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°

Peter,
how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
He has an academic background, and you can't have missed that have you done
the minor search needed to have it confirmed!

Wolter got his first degree in geology in 1982. So don't try to sit on high
horses telling otherwise. He has more than 15 years of experience within the
company he founded and more before he founded the company in 1990.

Wolter's merits:
"Bachelor Degree - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1982
Honorary Masters - Geology - University of Minnesota-Duluth, 1987"

"Professional Geologist (PG), MN Registration #30024
Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), Certification #8260"

above as a lot more you can read about in:
http://www.aipgmn.org/wolter_bio.htm

Inger E



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... "Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... >>> understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the ... whom Wolter lists as one of those who "peer ... notwithstanding that I know little about geology. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the ... It is from an email relating to his current work on ... But I recall that Ojakangas, whom Wolter lists as one of those who "peer reviewed" the work, actually contributed suggestions to Wolter while the work was on-going. ... I suspect that even for those knowledgeable in geology engaged in a true peer review process, those questions would have come up, and as a result, the final work would have been presented in a clearer, more complete form. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Answer to Daryl with ref. US Professors involved KRS testing
    ... >> the technical testresults of Wolter and ... >> the Professors of Geology who worked with him from scratch. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Answer to Daryl with ref. US Professors involved KRS testing
    ... > the technical testresults of Wolter and ... > the Professors of Geology who worked with him from scratch. ... Hanson's Kensington Runestone, A defense of Olof Ohman the Accused Forger, ... report is reprinted in Appendix H and represent the first scientific work ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct information re. "Academic" definition
    ... Tom and Peter deliberatly misinterpret and misunderstand ... how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter? ... One of the slams against folks coming into highly polarized topics, especially if there is evidence of shoddy work and/or bias on one or both sides, is whether what they have written could withstand the normal process of peer review. ...
    (sci.archaeology)