Re: Geology Question (KRS related)

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:53:08 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

This is a general difference between us. When there are gaps in the
data I tend to fill it with '?' but you seem to substitute an 'X'. The
fact that I withhold rejection of a hypothesis doesn't mean that I
accept it.

First, you really ought to slow down when you read. I just finished saying
that I'll accept data filling in the gaps regardless of source. I have
repeatedly used the same ? for data gaps in the Nielsen/Wolter work
(although what use the symbol X would imply escapes me).

'X' means crossed out - there is no evidence. The '?' means I don't
know what the evidence is.

Second, I don't think that your posts distinguish between withholding
rejection of a hypothesis and accepting it. For example, from:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/beec0b5626d64594?dmode=source&hl=en

or

http://tinyurl.com/d8gcm

"Apart from that, Scott wolter's work seems to have established the age of
the KRS as being +2 centuries at the time of discovery. That too is
important."

In the context of the discussion in that thread, I don't think that
statement strongly indicates that you do not accept Wolter's hypothesis;
certainly without filling in the blank left by the word "seems", one cannot
come away with anything other than that you strongly believe Wolter to be
correct. There's at least one subsequent post in that thread in which you
claim to be "impartial", but your entire posting history in sci.archaeology
demonstrates to for you, "impartial" means "I accept the conclusion that
I've preselected and await evidence that it's wrong."

The use of the word 'seems' should be interpreted as meaning that
'Apart from that, Scott Wolter's work [gives the appearance of having]
established the age of the KRS as being +2 centuries at the time of
discovery.' No possible interpretation of 'seems' can lead you to the
conclusion that I meant 'Apart from that, Scott wolter's work [has]
established the age of the KRS as being +2 centuries at the time of
discovery.'

This highlights the point I was trying to make above. I was implying
room for doubt. You want to interpret my statement as an expression of
an absolute opinion. Well, I'm sorry, but it wasn't.



Eric Stevens

.