Thursday 31 July 2014

Parch Mark Paper To Be Published.

A note from Antiquity journal:

REFERENCE: ANT2013/0344

TYPE: Research

TITLE: Parchmarks at Stonehenge, July 2013

AUTHOR(S): Simon Banton, Mark Bowden, Tim Daw, Damian Grady, Sharon Soutar

" I am writing to let you know that your article will be published in Volume 88, Issue 341, September 2014. The volume will be available online at http://antiquity.ac.uk/journal.html from around 26 August and the printed copy of the journal will be available from 1 September."

This relates to the parchmarks revealed here, but there is more to them than I have been, and am, allowed to reveal pre-publication.

42 comments:

  1. Good going Tim. It would be nice to have some more definitive evidence that the circle may once have been complete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patchmarks can never (by their nature) produce 'definitive evidence' - only archaeological excavations can produce such conclusions, and even then, only if the excavator understands how the evidence was produced.

      We have for the last 90 years real archaeological evidence of the patchmarks that 'supposedly' completes the circle. The excavation of stone hole 13 in 1924 shows (by its size) that at best the stone that occupied the hole was equivalent to Stone 11 which still remains (and overlooked) which adds to the real facts currently ignored by the 'experts' and those who wish to complete the solar temple and myth.

      If you wish to ignore the 'real' science and pander to speculation - that's your choice my friend, but it's not scientific (a little bit like present day archaeology!!).

      RJL

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Patchmarks can never (by their nature) produce 'definitive evidence' - only archaeological excavations can produce such conclusions, and even then, only if the excavator understands how the evidence was produced.

      There's no definitive evidence for anything Robert. “I think, therefore I am”, is just about as far as you can get in terms of absolute evidence. Tim's foresight, in recording the location of the marks, adds weight to certain arguments.

      But there is no reason to do any excavations as far as I can tell, so no reason for 'real' science, as you call it, to get involved: It is difficult to see what benefit to society there would be in finding out why mankind's early monuments existed and what motivation would have been needed to build them. If you did happen to know what caused this to happen, there would be no economic or social justification to providing the archaeological community with the means to understand it.

      So I think you're being a bit unfair on archaeologists. The occasional speculation about what monuments were for shouldn't be mistaken for the job that the profession actually does.


      Delete
  2. " It is difficult to see what benefit to society there would be in finding out why mankind's early monuments existed and what motivation would have been needed to build them."

    Couldn't disagree more Jon.

    It is 'Essential' that we know were we came from and to understand our ancestory as it could lead to a better understanding of our existing civilisation and whether the principles we currently base our society upon are truly good, just and fair.

    Archaeologists are guilty of 'unprofessional complacency' - the evidence is there to be seen and evaluated, yet social dogma has blinded their research and therefore, as a consequence, our society is also blind to the realities of the past, which would dramatically change our present if fully understood.

    Hence my trilogy is not just about simply archaeology. It is about our ancestors anthropology and finally (as you quoted Rene Descartes) their philosophy, in a vain hope that publishing this knowledge will change our societies future.

    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

    George Orwell

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is 'Essential' that we know were we came from and to understand our ancestory as it could lead to a better understanding of our existing civilisation and whether the principles we currently base our society upon are truly good, just and fair.

    Our principles are of our own creation and largely a result of recent history. I doubt you can argue that we can establish anything about our principles (now) from a study this far back. So trying to define a societal or economic benefit using this argument would be exceptionally difficult.


    Archaeologists are guilty of 'unprofessional complacency' - the evidence is there to be seen and evaluated, yet social dogma has blinded their research and therefore....

    Archaeological research, especially of this type, isn't high on any funding priorities because nobody has established a coherent benefit to society in doing it. There are plenty of other things that money can be spent on, almost all of which have a defined and coherent potential benefit. If there were a benefit, perhaps archaeologists would be interested. But you can hardly blame them for not being interested in something that many would argue is just a trivial vanity pursuit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I doubt you can argue that we can establish anything about our principles (now) from a study this far back."

    I take it you're implying that we have found philosophical solutions to the ago old problems which (the knowledge of) ancient civilisations could not contribute?

    The study of philosophy (that in reality even pre-dates the ancient Greek texts) is currently over two and a half thousand years old - yet these questions of morality and ethics are still debated in both universities and society today without resolution.

    One of these moral debates is education. You quite rightly suggest it is not well funded and you would be correct, but its not funded correctly as our society judge it not to be 'a benefit' or to be more accurate 'profitable'.

    We live an a capitalist subservient society where money is the goal rather than knowledge, honour and liberty. You might be interested that in the past there was a society that rejected money, possessions and servitude for freedom and liberty.

    These were the megalithic builders of our past - a society much greater that just simple hunter gather part-time stone masons of current archaeological myth. Which would be worth every penny of our societies precious fiat currency, if it unlocks the solution to today's pending economic and social crash - perhaps we are not as intelligent as we would imagine!!

    We dream and talk of Utopia - yet it once existed - a free civilisation without poverty or slavery, united by a common goal. All we have left now is just the myths of the past.

    “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.”


    ― Mark Twain

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take it you're implying that we have found philosophical solutions to the ago old problems which (the knowledge of) ancient civilisations could not contribute?

      No. Not at all. Not sure how you got to that conclusion. Archaeological research, especially of this type, isn't high on any funding priorities because nobody has established a coherent benefit to society in doing it.

      Delete
    2. Well that being the case my friend, its up to the likes of ourselves to prove to our society that such funding can lead to a greater reward than ever imagined!

      RJL

      Delete
    3. Well that being the case my friend, its up to the likes of ourselves to prove to our society that such funding can lead to a greater reward than ever imagined!

      The ideas have been researched for several hundred years. To date, few discoveries have been made about why the monuments were built. There have been some interesting ideas: The astro-archaeo proposals obviously have a strong basis but are clearly only partially correct. I suspect that the reason behind the construction of monuments, leading eventually to a 'Stonehenge', will prove to be associated with astro-archaeology.

      However, I also suspect that a more encompassing explanation will be startlingly obvious and that the current (rather complex) 'astro' explanations may prove to have made the wood difficult to see through all the trees. If anyone did happen to stumble across the source reasoning for monument construction, I suspect that it would be a very costly exercise to develop that framework up to a state that would allow the archaeological community to progress.

      In all this time, several hundred years, nobody appears to have developed a case showing what benefit there would be if it were explained. In any case, there are few serious peer review publications that accept this sort of material. This probably indicates that there is no benefit in having this type of material published.

      What makes you believe that we, people who have no expertise whatsoever in archaeology (though maybe that's just me and does not apply to you), could produce an argument explaining the benefits of funding archaeology?

      Delete
  5. "What makes you believe that we, people who have no expertise whatsoever in archaeology (though maybe that's just me and does not apply to you), could produce an argument explaining the benefits of funding archaeology? "

    Well I don't believe archaeology has any 'experts' currently - hence the public's apathy towards prehistoric studies and their monuments (if you look at google trends and type in 'stonehenge' you will see that it currently has about 40% interest against just 10 years ago) and this is why series like time-team 'bit the dust', because of the lack of return on their investment.

    Now that doesn't mean that people were not 'originally' interested - they were and wanted to get involved. But the 'Experts' bored the pants off them like Prior with his shallow explanations - which in my view were just plainly wrong and the public just switch over!

    And I don't blame them some of these 'experts' were my tutors at UCL and they sent me to sleep on most evenings as they failed to grasp the greater story in favour of dull detail which had little to no relevance to the historic story of mankind.

    Great men are needed to tell great stories of history - I grew up watching men as Bronwski (The Ascent of Man) and Sagan (Cosmos) who could take an audience on a journey of belief.

    Just one great series would lead to a resurgence of interest in archaeology and our prehistoric origins - when producers realise that a greater story than 300 or Noah based on real events are available to make, things will change and funding will return to a younger more dynamic group of archaeologist with new ideas free from existing dogma. It happened to physics in the 1930 with the quantum revolution and it will happen in archaeology. All we need to do is keep the faith that things will change, my friend - and tell the story of our monuments and who built them, be patient, and make sure Stonehenge interest does not hit the zero mark on Google trends.

    "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
    Max Planck

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

    Clever chap old Max. It's something to bear in mind when advancing any new theory: You have to wait for a generation to pass on if any of your subsequent observations are a consequence of, or dependent on, that new theory.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It's something to bear in mind when advancing any new theory: You have to wait for a generation to pass on if any of your subsequent observations are a consequence of, or dependent on, that new theory."

    Clearly not , as seen by the huge numbers of revolutionary theories that are accepted by their contemporaries .
    Planck’s own experience , and those of his contemporaries ,e.g. Heisenberg , Einstein , prior to the comment , contradict the principle . e.g. he had opposed the older Boltzmann for decades before finally accepting his constant and then going on to produce his own revolutionary theory accepted in his lifetime . The only reason we continue to hear of the principle is because of Kuhn , who based his work on it and all the wild woolly theorists who find succour in it ,finding it slightly more sophisticated than the more usual “they laughed at ….(insert revolutionary who found acceptance ) .We tend to forget the revolutionaries that were plain wrong and the wild woolly theories that bit dust that massively outnumber the successes .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

      Arthur C. Clarke

      (substitute 'distinguished scientist' for 'Sherlock')

      Delete
  8. Needless to say a lack of substantive content about the subject at hand , not surprising considering it will be based on a lifetime of learning based on tv docs from the 60 's , and a book of quotations .

    It's only a matter of time before we get the Prince's Horatio line and Schopenhauer's "All truth ..." the other resorts of the wacky theorists .

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Clearly not , as seen by the huge numbers of revolutionary theories that are accepted by their contemporaries ."

    A revolutionary theory may be accepted George. Nevertheless, there is little point in advancing a subsequent set of observations: That was the point of my observation: "It's something to bear in mind when advancing any new theory: You have to wait for a generation to pass on if any of your subsequent observations are a consequence of, or dependent on, that new theory."


    If a new theory has benefits, either economic or societal, then it is probably worth advancing all subsequent aspects of a new theory. If the solution to an old problem is generally thought to have no economic or societal benefit, it is difficult to see quite why one would spend time on developing other aspects of the same set of problems.

    As for Planck, (and his contemporaries ,e.g. Heisenberg , Einstein), many people thought, at the time of Berlin's supremacy in Physics, that there was little potential for future benefit from physics: Many thought that Newton had done all there was to do.

    Einstein was fortunate enough to be in the very special position of having developed two dependent theories in his lifetime: The first of which (Special) was restricted to a particular set of circumstances (the reason it is called 'special relativity'). The second, much later, overall theory (general) provided an explanation for special as well as other circumstances.

    Einstein was only able to get independent test verification financed for the subsequent theory (from the British establishment; largely financed to prove that Einstein was wrong) as a result of a reluctant partial acceptance of the possibility of the first.


    Fortunately for Einstein, he was a young man when he developed the first theorum. The theorum was also recognised (much later) to have benefits to mankind. If one was not as young as Einstein, and the field of study of a theory was perceived to have no benefit to mankind, one would be better to archive the secondary observations and move on. That's all I was trying to get at.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jon ,the point was that the Planck principle , does not describe his experience or that of many others including his contemporaries , even in the same field .Not only did Planck oppose the elder Boltzmann before coming around to accept his view , Planck’s teacher Helmholtz had a similar conversion when after years of non acceptance of the Newtonian Thomas Young’s three colour theory he changed tack and we now have the Young –Helmholtz theory . Darwin was accepted by the old guard as readily as by the young turks . Age or the spirit of a scientific “generation” has no impact on the acceptance of a theory , if that theory can be shown to be the best model yet , no matter how revolutionary .
    You don’t have to wait for a generation to pass on before subsequent observations dependent on , or a consequence of that theory are accepted . Quite the opposite , once a new theory has found acceptance there is a likely to be increase in subsequent confirmations . Fortunately , economic or social benefits are not necessarily a consideration or priority for many theorists e.g. in physics ,Planck & Einstein , why should they be , and who is to say what is beneficial or what will provide untold or un thought of future benefits ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fortunately , economic or social benefits are not necessarily a consideration or priority for many theorists e.g. in physics ,Planck & Einstein , why should they be , and who is to say what is beneficial or what will provide untold or un thought of future benefits ?

    I guess all you can do is to make your own assessment of the likelihood of benefit to others on any given project George. Obviously, if you're unsure of what the potential benefits might be, you take as much advice from others as you can.

    Most of the work that the company I run does revolves around assessing older structures, often using historic clues. I was asked to go along to a very large mansion yesterday, somewhere in middle England, and made an observation about three things that happened (the first in the 17th century, the second in the 18th century and the third in the 21st). The people who knew enough about this sort of thing to bring us in then opened up the structure at one particular spot. What they will do as a result will undoubtedly save the occupant's lives at some unknown time in the future.

    So historical investigation is a very rewarding job in both economic and social terms.

    But you have to make choices as to what to do with your time: In the past, I have been published in an academic journal on a specific interpretation of Special Relativity theory, but I wouldn't want to try to start dabbling in physics again just because it might produce an unknown benefit: Other people are far more qualified than me at this sort of thing and my specialism is the use and interpretation of structures.

    Anyways, I think we're going off topic. Congrats to Tim all round I think.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Darwin was accepted by the old guard as readily as by the young turks"

    What a lot of nonsense!

    The beagle trip was 1831 - 1836

    The first suggestions in meetings and publication between 1838 -1843

    The publication that made him famous was in 1859 - because he was frightened to publish as he would lose funding and credibility to continue his research - it was only when Wallace stubbled upon the same hypothesis that force him to go to press.

    And the Royal Society awarded him a medal in 1864 - but failed to put 'Origin of the Species' on the citation as even then it was not fully accepted.

    Almost a complete generation between concept and recognition - Max was right and you're wrong. No surprise there Sherlock!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  13. The date that matters is the publication of “On the Origin of Species “ (1859) within a decade i.e. less than generation , it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks . You have also conveniently ignored Planck’s own experience which turns the principle on it’s head from two perspectives , i.e. the young turk finally accepting the older view which he had rejected then acceptance of the consequent theory in less than a generation . It’s quality that matters ,that is why shysters resort to the principle when their “theories” are shot full of holes from anyone who knows their subject , regardless of age.
    Back to your sandwiches and video tapes Davis .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks"

      If so why was the book not even mentioned on the citation?

      Why was his name presented to the committee for this medal every year from 1859 but rejected?

      And did Einstein finally conceded that God does indeed play dice and accept quantum in his life time?

      Never mind Sherlock we will out live your antagonistic voice by many years to tell the new generation the truth.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Never mind Sherlock we will out live your antagonistic voice by many years to tell the new generation the truth.

      Hey, don't include me in that Robert. I quite enjoy reading some of George's observations. Though maybe I don't always understand where he's coming from in all of them.

      Delete
    3. I too love to read "George's" comments - is he 'George Curious' the cartoon character? It allows me the understand the depth of disinformation in our society.

      Delete
  14. "it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks"
    Is a fact , learn to live with it . David Hull even proves it empirically .
    You have yet again managed to avoid the other examples .
    “And did Einstein finally conceded “ ???

    Pointing out errors is not antagonism , if so you must live with it on an hourly basis .

    There is no “we” ,nobody accepts your theories on any subject ,except of course Dr Stuart Love , but we all know he was just another pseudonym .

    ReplyDelete
  15. First sentence from "Nature " 1870 ,i.e. 11 years after publication .

    http://tinyurl.com/nyabzvc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should read all the article Sherlock you might learn something of the 'Big Picture' (not exactly your strong point!).

      In conclusion the article states "In the essay alluded to above, M Claparede, himself one of the FEW genuine Darwinians among French writers" - not exactly main stream as you implied.

      In fact the reality is that it remained just a highly debated 'hypothesis' until 1930 when the brilliant mathematician Fisher was able to prove the Theory of Natural Selection mathematically it finally DID become mainstream - almost a hundred years after the Beagle voyage, with lots of dead antagonists in between.

      RJL

      Delete
  16. 10 years. Impressive. Nevertheless, 20-25 years would represent the passing on of a generation back then and a sizeable proportion of that generation would have passed on in just over 10 years. Sounds to me as if Max was on the money with the observation George.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 10 years is less than generation , the theory is not only scientifically revolutionary it is political and particularly philosophical /religious dynamite and yet it has been accepted "within the last few years " i.e. earlier than the period of writing .
    That is not what Planck claims , if he was on the money he would have to have said 10 years , not a generation . He was out by 10-15 years .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok George: If a theory (as Origin of the Species) is populist, about something revolutionary, produced by a well known scientist and concerns that scientist's field of work, then Max Planck's hypothesis seems to not always apply.

      I suspect that Planck's rule may well apply to the development of most other theories. If a theory did require a generation to gain acceptance within a scientific profession, one would be better to archive secondary observations, for however long it takes, and move on.

      Delete
    2. Jon , I mentioned Darwinism mainly due to it being considered a good example of support for the principle but even there it failed and does when applied to Planck's own experience .
      There are studies that have refuted the principle and others that point out that what matters is not age as a guide to receptivity of new ideas but location, access to
      resources, and networks. Further the old guard are just as likely to support unconventional theories. " The resources scientists accrue as they advance through their careers can be deployed to offset the higher costs and obstacles confronting those who might contemplate high-risk
      research endeavours. Older scientists are thus better situated to pursue unconventional lines of research and to advocate controversial ideas. " Messeri: Age & Reception of Plate Tectonics .
      What is interesting is when it gets trotted out , sometimes from the dissatsified young but more usually ,as in this case , the elderly with a chip on their shoulder , who feel they are being 'antagonised ' when the errors are pointed out in their fantasies and only a fresh generation untainted by study can appreciate their "theories " .

      Delete
    3. There are studies that have refuted the principle and others that point out that what matters is not age as a guide to receptivity of new ideas but location, access to resources, and networks.

      Aye George. That may well be a better summary of the state of play. I guess anyone with a theory would be well advised to consider what access they have to the resources of the relevant field of study before considering whether or not it is worth spending resources to advance that theory.

      Delete
  18. You should attempt to understand what is being discussed Stuart ( Dr of ??? ) , i.e. “ Planck’s principle “ ,which is not concerned with the punters like you , note the mention of “old guard “ and “young turks “ ,the principle is about the acceptance by scientists . If the principle applied to the general public generations would be more applicable in many cases . Similarly the principle is about science and despite being the resort of the snake oil merchants it is not about fantasy .
    Darwinism is still not accepted by some scientists today , but it was accepted , quickly among his peers , as the article points out , as do other contemporary accounts and also Hull’s empirical demonstration .

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Your arrogance betrays you Georgy Porgy.

    Do you need a Phd to have an opinion or point out obvious historic and archaeological errors? This 'punter' has asked several questions which have avoided (not for the first time) to answer which rebukes your nonsensical statements. The idea of scientists having a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom is also elitist academic nonsense as that 'TV Doc' presenter from the sixies Dr Carl Sagan once pointed out when he said "science is a way of thinking rather than a body of knowledge" - which like the other quotations from this post are from my new book '13 Ancient Things that don't make sense in History' - you should buy a copy and prove Plank wrong by changing your point of view!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'This 'punter' has asked several questions which have avoided (not for the first time) to answer which rebukes your nonsensical statements. '
    Maybe can explain what that means .If you think that you have refuted any comments , then it's , as ever , wrong again .
    Some punters are perfectly capable of understanding thoeries that are outwith their areas of expertise , this of course does not apply to you .Most punters appreciate their limitations when it comes to commenting on arcane subjects and leave it to the pros , this also doesn't apply to you .
    Look forward to this "book "wot you wrote , any chance of seeing the vid where you attempt digging with a deer antler too ?
    'prove Plank wrong ' Is this a reference to the excellent 60's Tommy Cooper ,Eric Sykes short ? Not tooo many quotes for you in that one I doubt that the "book" will have quite so many laughs either ,but the thought of it is a good start


    ReplyDelete
  22. Quite right Georgy Porgy - an interesting subconscious typo!!

    Do you think I had any particular person in mind when I was mistyping the reply??

    Anyway the questions you failed to answer when I rebuked your statement: "it was accepted just as quickly by the old guard as the young turks" are:

    If so why was the book not even mentioned on the citation? (that's the Royal Society's Copley Medal (1864) - just in case you don't know your history)

    Why was his name presented to the committee for this medal every year from 1859 but rejected?

    And did Einstein finally conceded that God does indeed play dice and accept quantum in his life time?

    Unless of course “And did Einstein finally conceded “ ??? - is the limit of your knowledge on this subject??

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Georgy Porgy " That's clever , did you just make that up that ?

    Neither of these comments refute the fact that Darwinism was readily accepted by the "old guard " in less than a decade , proven empirically by Hull and others and highlighted by contemporary reports i.e. the Nature comment . Not everyone who refutes the principle gets a medal .The fact that he was awarded the Copley medal within five years of publication of ' Origin .... 'says enough about acceptance by the old guard .
    "And did Einstein finally conceded that God " ??? , yet another example of repeating the error .
    The principle doesn't tell us anything about the acceptance or otherwise of theories , the subject is far too complex to be explained by something so simplistic . It has been , quite rightly , described as an ober dictum and only tends to get trotted out by those with a chip on their shoulder and in this case a large dose of accompanying nescience .

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Neither of these comments refute the fact that Darwinism was readily accepted by the "old guard "

    Complete nonsense once again!

    IF THEY accepted it then the book would have been mentioned in the citation!!

    IF THEY accepted it he would have won the medal in 1860!!

    AND IF Einstein accepted the quantum world he wouldn't have spent the rest of his life trying to prove it wrong through his 'theory of everything'!!

    Which proves Max was right and the plank was wrong - yet again!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have never paid any attention to the commandments and are unlikely to ever do so .

      None of what you say refutes the fact that the old guard accepted Darwinism . Being awarded the Copley medal by the old guard five years after the publication of "Origin ....) actually supports that rather than the contrary .

      "IF THEY accepted it he would have won the medal in 1860!! "
      Now that is nonsense .Think about it, only one person gets the medal annually , yet a much greater number have their theories accepted by the Society that don't get a medal .

      The Darwinism example was mentioned as it is an extreme case supposedly in support of the principle and it fails , like your desperate case mentioning the Copley medal .
      Your mention of Einstein in relation Planck is interesting and ironic and shows the shallowness of your understanding of the subject .
      " IF Einstein accepted the quantum world "
      Einstein (1905 ) wrote three papers on quanta , the older Planck rejected the photon hypothesis , maybe that is the source of his throw away principle ,but the dispute with Boltzmann ,which you have conveniently ignored ,seems more likely . Einstein was involved in the first wave of the quantum revolution . Like Planck , he also changed his mind in relation to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom but as only six years separated them age is hardly a consideration . It was ot to start with and like all these errors the more you say, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself .

      Delete
    2. Commandment 11

      Thou shalt not make up history to justify their inferior position in an argument! (Charlatan Principle)

      1860 the Copley Prize goes to.... Robert Bunsen - inventor of the Bunsen Burner, which will amuse school children for centuries burning their pencils in Chemistry class... Sorry Mr Darwin much more important than... evolution was it??

      LOL!! Georgy Porgy.. watch out for the men in the white coats!

      RJL

      Delete
    3. LOL ,indeed .
      It doesn't work simply describing others what has been so often applied to yourself , you have to actually support the contention .Without the support it's no better than your childish propensity for playground naming . Bear in mind , with the number of names/personas you assume the potential for jolly japing is in inverse proportion to your credibility .
      In this case you have to point out where there was any made up history .we won't hold our breath .Don't you realise that we (note plural ) can see that you are incapbale of doing so .You have avoided ,as usual , all the points and can only resort to the usual bluff and bluster .
      You have no argument , but don't think that by continually being childish your comments will be ignored .

      Delete
  25. Please read these carefully Bob ─ or whatever your real name is ─ then apply them.
    Any first year student of Logic knows these very basic articles.
    At a glance, you consistently trammel over 8 of them.

    The 10 Commandments

    1. Thou shalt not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad Hominem)

    2. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw Man Fallacy)

    3. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty Generalization)

    4. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the Question)

    5. Thou shalt not claim that because something happened before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc / False Cause)

    6. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False Dichotomy)

    7. Thou shalt not claim that the argument is either true or false. (Ad Ignorantum)

    8. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim(Burden of proof reversal)

    9. Thou shalt not assume ‘This’ follows ‘that’ when it has no logical connection. (Non Sequitur)

    10 Thou shalt not claim that because a premise is popular, it must be true. (Bandwagon Fallacy)


    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank you Neil - about as relevant and useful as the real ten commandments!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete