lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
In a discussion about Young Earth Creationist knowledge The following exchange occured.

Pinook wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Pinook wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Pinook wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
.... But they are willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true. ...

I suggest that the history of science provides a multitude of examples of individual scientists who were not willing to accept results that are unexpected and that would shatter what they think is true.…

Can you provide these examples please.

Are you serious Moshe?
Your understanding of science is lacking examples of scientists who reject results?
And do remember here that science goes from psychology, through sociology, and across the other physical and social sciences

I think it would be useful to discuss them. I did not sya they don't exist.

I suggest we start a new thread.
I'd go for,
"Scientists who reject new results/new interpretations, Popper's "dogmatic" scientists".

OK with you?
Interested to see where you want to take this.


And here we are.
To make it clear, Popper saw "dogmatic" scientists as a very important part of his understanding of good science. He wrote that we need more "dogmatic" scientists.
The "dogmatic" scientist provides the needed resistance to change, an opposition that a new understanding must successfully argue against. Without some scientists holding to their (scientifically) conservative views, new views could be accepted on very weak evidence. Dogmatic scientists point out the flaws and weaknesses of new science.

Whilst the letters page of many scientific journals bring examples of scientists who are not "willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true", I'm wondering if others have current examples of scientists rejecting new results?

Other wise I'll try to dig out the classic history of science example of physicists deferring acceptance of new results, that falsified the dominant understanding, pending arrival of results of an experiment that they had greater confidence in. This happened during the 1950s, from memory.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
I have 2 old ones.

1] Continental Drift was proposed in the 1930s based on similar rock beds on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the shape of Africa and S. America, etc.
. . . Rejected until much more evidence came in in the 60s and 70s. Then suddenly most switched.

2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America. This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed. And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What the hell is it with non-scientists bringing up Popper as if he is some sort of expert? I know he's supposed to be an expert on the philosophy of science but whenever I read his assertions he seems to have no clue how or why people actually do science.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/186717?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont...

Don't waste your time, people.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
I have 2 old ones.

1] Continental Drift was proposed in the 1930s based on similar rock beds on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the shape of Africa and S. America, etc.
. . . Rejected until much more evidence came in in the 60s and 70s. Then suddenly most switched.

2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America. This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed. And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.

The point is that many ideas currently accepted as correct were initially rejected until the weight of evidence came to support them. this is not what Pinook seemed to be implying.

To me, the most famous of these is the notion of absolute versus relative frames of reference. Newton carried the day arguing for absolute frames of reference. Huygens and others argued for the more modern view BUT they did not have the evidence to make their case and Newton did. 300 years later that changed but based on the physical evidence of the time Newton prevailed as he should have because in Newton's day the physical evidence seemed to be supporting his notion of absolute frames of reference.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
"the weight of evidence"
Yes exactly. Science depends on educated judgements.

However scientists' judgements are, like every other humans', open to biasing from their emotions.

Here is an account of tissue culture scientists responding to the news that test results showed some of their cultures were contaminated with HeLa. This is in 1966. (The problem rolled on for another decade.)

From:
A CONSPIRACY OF CELLS One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. By Michael Gold
pgs 29 & 30

"My God, they're going to tear you limb from limb,"
said a friend when Gartler arrived at the meeting to de­
liver his report. "I can't believe what you're saying."
Gartler said it nonetheless. He stood up in the con­
vention hall of the Bedford Springs Hotel and said that
his tools for distinguishing human cell cultures demon­
strated that most of them weren't different at all. He said
that the eighteen cell lines he tested, samples of which
were now in the vaults of the nation's new cell bank,
were really just the ever-popular HeLa cells. He added, al­
most incidentally, that researchers who had experi­
mented on these cervical cancer cells believing they were
liver, or blood, or bone marrow, or anything else had bet­
ter reconsider their findings. "The work is open to seri­
ous question," said Gartler, "and in my opinion would be
best discarded."

The tissue culturists were not pleased to hear this,
particularly from a geneticist, particularly since they
had spent the last ten or fifteen years studying samples of
these cells, thinking they were looking at many distinct
forms of cancer and at normal tissue from lots of differ­
ent organs. Even the founders of the cell bank who had
suspected trouble found it hard to believe. And to the re­
searchers who had actually created the cultures on
Carder's list of spoiled goods, who had toiled for years
and suffered repeated disappointments before they finally
got those cultures to take root, his findings were impossi­
ble. They began hurling skeptical questions.
Just how did he know the cells hadn't been taken
over by HeLa in his own laboratory?
...
Leonard Hayflick stood up. A highly respected cell
biologist and an officer of the Tissue Culture Associa­
tion, ..., the
eminent cell biologist dismissed the geneticist's conclu­
sions, saying simply they were very difficult for him to
accept.
Then rose Harvard University's Robert Chang, an­
other luminary of cell biology and a trustee of the Tissue
Culture Association. Chang was the creator of one of the
most popular of human cell lines. The Chang liver cul­
ture was used extensively in studies of liver function.
Whatever culture Gartler claims to have analyzed,
said Chang, it wasn't a culture that came from Chang. "I
have never sent him any cell line, and I don't remember
ever having corresponded with him."
...
In fact, six of the eighteen cultures he examined had come
straight from that storehouse of only the best and most
carefully screened cultures. The important point, said
Gartler, is that while there may well be some genuine
samples of these cultures at certain laboratories, there
are others in active use that are impostors. Unless experi­
menters can tell the bona fide from the bogus, he said,
much of the research done on these cultures is in doubt.
It looked to Gartler as if Chang was contemplating
murder-or suicide-but all he did was sit down.
More skeptical questions, more icy speeches. The
session finally ended at noon, Gartler escaped from the
room, and the tissue culturists changed their tactics.
Now it was a war of isolation. They ostracized him for
his wild and insolent claims. Through most of lunch he
sat alone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
whac3 wrote:
...
The point is that many ideas currently accepted as correct were initially rejected until the weight of evidence came to support them. this is not what Pinook seemed to be implying.
...

This process may be made simpler by you stating your understanding of what I am implying.

I could then either confirm your understanding, point out where I think you are mis-reading me, or apologise for making a mess of expressing myself yet again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank F
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
IF YOU WANT IT
badge
Please investigate a resource based economy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Science improves faster than scientists.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marco Schaub
Switzerland
Thun
Bern
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There was a book called "100 authors against Einstein" in 1931:



To which he famously responded:

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tor Gjerde
Norway
Trondheim
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
https://landnam.old.no
badge
https://old.no
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America.

The Kensington forgery is not considered such due to dogmatic views and rejection of evidence, but due to an overwhelming evidence of being made in the 1800s and none of it being older.

Quote:
This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed.

Right (though “village” is a stretch, “camp” would be closer). At a fraction of the distance from their homelands and reachable by ship, and it had not been visited for 350 years at the alleged date of the Kensington forgery.

Quote:
And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.

Yes. In a moribund colony struggling to maintain itself and the essential contact with the rest of the Norse world, and with no resources to mount an expedition penetrating inland to a point where it took later European colonists centuries to reach after establishing themselves at the coasts.

Quote:
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago

This is based on the claims of a single geologist, and this form of dating is as a type entirely disregarded by arcaeologist as little more than guesswork and of no scientific value.

Quote:
and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.

This claim is patently false; or rather a conscious dishonest distortion of the truth. What has recently been discovered is a ninteenth century sheet of “secret” alphabets, which includes the exact same garbled pseudo-runes and the same non-runic pentadic numbers as used on the Kensington forgery. How this evidence can be seen as supporting anything other than a ninteenth century dating, consistent with the nineteenth century language of the text is beyond my understanding.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
I have 2 old ones.

1] Continental Drift was proposed in the 1930s based on similar rock beds on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the shape of Africa and S. America, etc.
. . . Rejected until much more evidence came in in the 60s and 70s. Then suddenly most switched.

2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America. This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed. And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.

No serious archaeologist/historian accepts the Kensington Runestone today.
It has nothing to do with science.
Thw wikipedia srticle is quite good on the subject.
Continental drift is basically the example. It shows how moribund geology had become by the 1960s.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
whac3 wrote:
...
The point is that many ideas currently accepted as correct were initially rejected until the weight of evidence came to support them. this is not what Pinook seemed to be implying.
...

This process may be made simpler by you stating your understanding of what I am implying.

I could then either confirm your understanding, point out where I think you mis-reading me, or apologise for making a mess of expressing myself yet again.
You brought to notion up as a counter to the idea that science responds to new data and adapt its collective understanding. This would imply to contend that's not the case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are you just looking for scientists that were slow to or simply didn't accept particular newer theories? Fred Hoyle would probably the classic example. Though even Einstein would be too.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LightRider wrote:
Science improves faster than scientists.

Is this supposed to sound wise? What does it mean? is it a quote?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank F
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
IF YOU WANT IT
badge
Please investigate a resource based economy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
LightRider wrote:
Science improves faster than scientists.

Is this supposed to sound wise? What does it mean? is it a quote?


Our collective knowledge, wisdom and capability grows faster and greater than any individual person's could.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Are you just looking for scientists that were slow to or simply didn't accept particular newer theories? Fred Hoyle would probably the classic example. Though even Einstein would be too.

Fred Hoyle is a classic example of a scientist who did one brilliant piece of work and then wasted the rest of his life pursuing nonsense.
Even when untenable he carried on rejecting the Big Bang, and Panspermia is just silly.
however his work on elemental synthesis should have got him the Nobel.
I think the other stuff and his complete non-collegiality (to say the least) meant no one would vote for him.
Most scientists who are wrong so spectacularly just vanish but earlier brilliance gave him unwarranted audience.
This sometimes happen when scientists stray outside their field. A Nobel prize in physics seems to make people listened to in other sciences, especially in the popular press.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
whac3 wrote:
Pinook wrote:
whac3 wrote:
...
The point is that many ideas currently accepted as correct were initially rejected until the weight of evidence came to support them. this is not what Pinook seemed to be implying.
...

This process may be made simpler by you stating your understanding of what I am implying.

I could then either confirm your understanding, point out where I think you mis-reading me, or apologise for making a mess of expressing myself yet again.
You brought to notion up as a counter to the idea that science responds to new data and adapt its collective understanding. This would imply to contend that's not the case.

The "fact" I brought, was to falsify the claim that, "[Scientists] are willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true."

The portrayal of Scientists as "willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true" was being used in contra-distinction to YEC proponents, "YECs are not. Under no circumstances can they accept a result that contradicts what they "know"".

This contra-distinction creates the meaning "[All scientists] are willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true."

"[All scientists] are willing to accept results that are unexpected and shatter what they think is true", is falsified by the existence of scientists who reject new evidence.

So no, I did not bring up the "notion up as a counter to the idea that science responds to new data and adapt its collective understanding".

I brought up the notion that, on the fine-grained level, individual scientists do at times reject new evidence that would "shatter what they think is true". The triviality of this on one level, and it's importance in making science robust on another, is why I found your request for examples surprising.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tor Gjerde
Norway
Trondheim
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
https://landnam.old.no
badge
https://old.no
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LightRider wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
LightRider wrote:
Science improves faster than scientists.

Is this supposed to sound wise? What does it mean? is it a quote?


Our collective knowledge, wisdom and capability grows faster and greater than any individual person's could.

What “collective” could meaningfully be said to be ahead of the foremost individuals in any scientific area? At most, one can retroactively say that some experts at some point were ahead of the experts at the time considered the foremost ones.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook;

--and when they do that they are not acting in the manner that scientists regard as proper professional behavior. Ir happens. So what is your point? I'd hardly say it's the norm. Sure, I'll concede that the level of evidence required for new ideas is dauntingly high. Certainly physics as a field is far more conservative than it used to be but then we've gotten physical models that have withstood decades of continuous testing while data is literally taken 24/7 throughout the year in multiple locations round the world and has been for decades now.

Yet you have people like myself who in fact do pursue new ideas in the field. We just have to make are cases well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank F
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
IF YOU WANT IT
badge
Please investigate a resource based economy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gjerde wrote:
LightRider wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
LightRider wrote:
Science improves faster than scientists.

Is this supposed to sound wise? What does it mean? is it a quote?


Our collective knowledge, wisdom and capability grows faster and greater than any individual person's could.

What “collective” could meaningfully be said to be ahead of the foremost individuals in any scientific area? At most, one can retroactively say that some experts at some point were ahead of the experts at the time considered the foremost ones.


Expert systems, artificial intelligences and other such entities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
gjerde wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America.

The Kensington forgery is not considered such due to dogmatic views and rejection of evidence, but due to an overwhelming evidence of being made in the 1800s and none of it being older.

Quote:
This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed.

Right (though “village” is a stretch, “camp” would be closer). At a fraction of the distance from their homelands and reachable by ship, and it had not been visited for 350 years at the alleged date of the Kensington forgery.

Quote:
And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.

Yes. In a moribund colony struggling to maintain itself and the essential contact with the rest of the Norse world, and with no resources to mount an expedition penetrating inland to a point where it took later European colonists centuries to reach after establishing themselves at the coasts.

Quote:
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago

This is based on the claims of a single geologist, and this form of dating is as a type entirely disregarded by arcaeologist as little more than guesswork and of no scientific value.

Quote:
and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.

This claim is patently false; or rather a conscious dishonest distortion of the truth. What has recently been discovered is a ninteenth century sheet of “secret” alphabets, which includes the exact same garbled pseudo-runes and the same non-runic pentadic numbers as used on the Kensington forgery. How this evidence can be seen as supporting anything other than a ninteenth century dating, consistent with the nineteenth century language of the text is beyond my understanding.

It apparently is quite possible that it is a forgery, however --

1] I said village because I do believe there are 3 or 4 substantial houses built of logs and dirt. Each over 30 ft long and 20 ft wide.
That seems more like a village than a camp.

2] If there were Vikings on Greenland and ships sailed there than it is possible that a ship sailed from Norway to Greenland and sailed on.
A book I read made a big deal out of a known expedition sent by the Danish or Norwegian King in around 1360 to Greenland to find out why the "Western Settlement" had been reported as abandoned.

3] Why would a Swedish settler date his forgery 1362? A date of 1062 or 1012 seems like it would have been more believable. Early Runic experts labeled it a forgery because it was obviously not an early 10th century inscription.

But, the final evidence has not been collected and may not be for 100 years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LightRider wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
LightRider wrote:
Science improves faster than scientists.

Is this supposed to sound wise? What does it mean? is it a quote?


Our collective knowledge, wisdom and capability grows faster and greater than any individual person's could.

And this has been true since the invention of writing. So what?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
1] Continental Drift was proposed in the 1930s based on similar rock beds on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the shape of Africa and S. America, etc.
. . . Rejected until much more evidence came in in the 60s and 70s. Then suddenly most switched.


Which is exactly how things are meant to work. The evidence was weak, the claim was enormous, so not accepted, but people carried on toking for more evidence. It was found, and tested, and the consensus shifted. No doubt there were some die hards who failed to accept the change, but that's because scientists are also people.

Quote:
2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America. This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed. And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.


This case I have no idea about. But anthropology isn't as rigorous a discipline as geophysics. Some of it isn't even science.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
gjerde wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America.

The Kensington forgery is not considered such due to dogmatic views and rejection of evidence, but due to an overwhelming evidence of being made in the 1800s and none of it being older.

Quote:
This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed.

Right (though “village” is a stretch, “camp” would be closer). At a fraction of the distance from their homelands and reachable by ship, and it had not been visited for 350 years at the alleged date of the Kensington forgery.

Quote:
And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.

Yes. In a moribund colony struggling to maintain itself and the essential contact with the rest of the Norse world, and with no resources to mount an expedition penetrating inland to a point where it took later European colonists centuries to reach after establishing themselves at the coasts.

Quote:
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago

This is based on the claims of a single geologist, and this form of dating is as a type entirely disregarded by arcaeologist as little more than guesswork and of no scientific value.

Quote:
and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.

This claim is patently false; or rather a conscious dishonest distortion of the truth. What has recently been discovered is a ninteenth century sheet of “secret” alphabets, which includes the exact same garbled pseudo-runes and the same non-runic pentadic numbers as used on the Kensington forgery. How this evidence can be seen as supporting anything other than a ninteenth century dating, consistent with the nineteenth century language of the text is beyond my understanding.

It apparently is quite possible that it is a forgery, however --

1] I said village because I do believe there are 3 or 4 substantial houses built of logs and dirt. Each over 30 ft long and 20 ft wide.
That seems more like a village than a camp.

2] If there were Vikings on Greenland and ships sailed there than it is possible that a ship sailed from Norway to Greenland and sailed on.
A book I read made a big deal out of a known expedition sent by the Danish or Norwegian King in around 1360 to Greenland to find out why the "Western Settlement" had been reported as abandoned.

3] Why would a Swedish settler date his forgery 1362? A date of 1062 or 1012 seems like it would have been more believable. Early Runic experts labeled it a forgery because it was obviously not an early 10th century inscription.

But, the final evidence has not been collected and may not be for 100 years.

It has been collected. It is a forgery. Move on.
Which book did you read?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
1] Continental Drift was proposed in the 1930s based on similar rock beds on opposite sides of the Atlantic and the shape of Africa and S. America, etc.
. . . Rejected until much more evidence came in in the 60s and 70s. Then suddenly most switched.


Which is exactly how things are meant to work. The evidence was weak, the claim was enormous, so not accepted, but people carried on toking for more evidence. It was found, and tested, and the consensus shifted. No doubt there were some die hards who failed to accept the change, but that's because scientists are also people.

Quote:
2] The Kensington Runestone is still rejected as a forgery by almost every Anthropologist specializing on N. America. This is despite the proof that Vikings had built a village on an island off Newfoundland 360 years before the stone says it was placed. And proof that the Vikings lived in Greenland until after 1362, the date on the stone.
. . As well as geological evidence that the letters in the inscription were carved several hundreds of years ago and are consistent with more recent discoveries of runes in Europe that are similar to runes in the inscription.


This case I have no idea about. But anthropology isn't as rigorous a discipline as geophysics. Some of it isn't even science.

Most of it isn't science!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Are you just looking for scientists that were slow to or simply didn't accept particular newer theories? Fred Hoyle would probably the classic example. Though even Einstein would be too.

Fred Hoyle is a classic example of a scientist who did one brilliant piece of work and then wasted the rest of his life pursuing nonsense.


That's unfair to him, he did more than one good thing in his earlier career. I would say there were three parts to his career. First, the good stuff, on nuclear synthesis. Then the Steady State hypothesis, which for a while was a genuine competition to the Big Bang hypothesis. But as you say, Hoyle held on when it was becoming untenable (understandable) and then when it was no longer tenable. And that put him in the fringe where he also picked up on other fringe topics.

I actually heard Hoyle lecture once, on his "bacteria in space" nonsense. But he started from a genuine scientific enquiry (what is in installer space) and genuine facts (what sizes of particles are there) before taking a wild jump from some things the size of bacteria to bacteria. Supported (he thought) by IR spectra similar to those of bacteria. Except actually similar to anything with C-C, C-H and other bonds.

Quote:
I think the other stuff and his complete non-collegiality (to say the least) meant no one would vote for him.
Most scientists who are wrong so spectacularly just vanish but earlier brilliance gave him unwarranted audience.
This sometimes happen when scientists stray outside their field. A Nobel prize in physics seems to make people listened to in other sciences, especially in the popular press.


Of course Hoyle never got a Nobel, though plenty of people think he deserved one (based on who else got one for related work). But by the time he might have been considered he already was into things that would have been embarrassing to appear to be endorsing. Plus of course that he was the sort of Yorkshireman who thinks the stereotypes of the worst sort of Yorkshiremen are aspirations to exceed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.