FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_Tarski]

[quote=]

Not one paleontologist I spoke to considered that to be anything to contradict the consensus.
There was no authentication (without which we have nothing really).

I don't know much about science, but in sports the word "consensus" means that others of expertise disagree. )

In science (and especially in this type of situation) it usually implies much more.
If 50.1% of experts agree on something they don't just slap it into to text books as a fact. Even if 10% disagree they would use a disclaimer or some qualification in a text book.

In this case, it is just simply stated in the texts.

Sorry; I read a whale of a lot of academic literature for my profession and I don't usually see disclaimers or an explanation of a contrary point of view from the author. These writers are given a very little amount of space to make their case and they do so without paying much lipservice to the other side.

The global warming literature is a primary example. I don't really think there is a consensus on (1) whether there is non-systemic warning, and (2) whether it is man-induced. I tend to believe that the evidence tilts slightly in favor of yes and yes to those questions, but the academics who advance a yes and yes position usually don't mention the other side.

Sometimes.

I think when it comes to pre-Columbian horses it is indeed the consensus view that they didn't exist, at least in recent history, but the true experts will acknowledge a peer-level contrary view. The problem I see with the pre-Columbian horses is that there has been insufficient radiocarbon data to support that view. There is plenty of stratigraphic evidence.

rcrocket

I am talking about textbooks for college and graduate classes. For cases without high consensus, they would use phrases like "One popular theory is that" or "today many scientists believe that" etc. But one does not hear things like "today many scientists believe that the tyranosaurus went extinct before the advent of homosapiens".






Also, you misconstrue the situation about global warming as just about every nonclimatologist on the political right is wont to do.

Global warming as such is real. We are at least about 80% certain that a significant amount of the global warming is caused by human activity.

How many names can you get that fit in these two criteria that disgree with the above assesment?

1. Is a global climatologist specializing in the question of global climate change.
2. Is working at one of the top universities and has an impressive research/publication record.

Not many I bet.

[_rcrocket]

I think when it comes to pre-Columbian horses it is indeed the consensus view that they didn't exist, at least in recent history, but the true experts will acknowledge a peer-level contrary view. The problem I see with the pre-Columbian horses is that there has been insufficient radiocarbon data to support that view. There is plenty of stratigraphic evidence.

Well, I'm no expert in the field, but I have read over thirty books about ancient Mesoamerica, written by widely respected scholars in the field, and I've never read even one statement that could even be twisted to imply that some scholars believe horses existed in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period.

But I could be wrong. Since a consensus only means 50.1 percent, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find some respected nonLDS Mesoamerican scholars who support the contrary view, ie, that horses really did exist in the specified time frame. And please use sources no less than twenty years old.

And while you're at it, you may want to explain why no horse exists in Mesoamerican art or literature, either, despite the heavy use of animals in their mythology.

I'm curious as to why you apparently won't read the cited Ray article. I thought you were an academic; if so, you would simply log onto your university's library and read the article yourself.

And, yes, there have been depictions of horses in Mesoamerican art. (The man riding the horse at Chitzenitza is a famous example; the toy horse pulling the cart is another; see references in Cyrus Gordon's book, "Before Columbus").

I'm not sure depictions in art have much meaning here. The Museum of Anthropologie in Mexico City (I've been there; seen them myself) have a depiction of a bearded European man dating back to around 600 AD to 1000 AD; there is a mural depicting two races of people, white and brown, fighting each other. My guide (a moonlighting university professor) at the Museum told me that these pieces of art demonstrated (1) Europeon contact with MesoAmerica long before Columbus, and (2) a now-extinct light-skinned peoples. But, what of it?

What do you mean by "literature?" The only "literature" of which I am familiar is Popul Vuh and since that post dates the conquest I put little faith in it.

You put no faith in the observations of the conquistidors?

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Also, you misconstrue the situation about global warming as just about every nonclimatologist on the political right is wont to do.

Global warming as such is real. We are at least about 80% certain that a significant amount of the global warming is caused by human activity.

How many names can you get that fit in these two criteria that disgree with the above assesment?

1. Is a global climatologist specializing in the question of global climate change.
2. Is working at one of the top universities and has an impressive research/publication record.

Not many I bet.

I'm on the political right? Ho ho!!! Hee-hee! I'm as close to being a socialist as you can get without being one. (My civil libertarianism confuses people.) I receive anonymous hate mail from people in my city where I live who deride me for being a Mormon and a Democrat. That's precious!

You're just a flaming left-wing bigot, presuming what you must to make your case!!! Combined with that right-wing bigot Graham, you two make an arrogant pair of academic bookends.

Why should I respond to the merits of your global warming comments? I did not suggest that it was fake and indeed said it wasn't. Rather, I point out that academic papers on the subject tend not to mention the arguments of the other side. Do you need proof?

I am talking about textbooks for college and graduate classes. For cases without high consensus, they would use phrases like "One popular theory is that" or "today many scientists believe that" etc. But one does not hear things like "today many scientists believe that the tyranosaurus went extinct before the advent of homosapiens".

You are the one who used the word "consensus," not me. I wouldn't use the word "consensus" to say that scientists say that dinosaurs existed long before man. If you are an academic, you fully well know the implication of the meaning of the word "consensus." It implies up to stiff opposition. A consensus National NCAA champion can have a mere 3 to 2 edge. It is a consensus view that the Brazilian rain forest is virgin; there is a stiff countervailing view that it is not.



rcrocket

[_SatanWasSetUp]

That's the question, isn't it? Does anyone remember the movie Space Balls, where Dark Helmet orders his men to "Comb the desert!" And then you see the guys out there with gigantic combs blindly hoping, apparently, to happen upon something? This is the vision I'm getting with FARMS and their horse and smelting research.

FARMS Archeologists searching for Book of Mormon Horses



Their Results

"We Ain't Found Sh**"

[_Tarski]

Also, you misconstrue the situation about global warming as just about every nonclimatologist on the political right is wont to do.

Global warming as such is real. We are at least about 80% certain that a significant amount of the global warming is caused by human activity.

How many names can you get that fit in these two criteria that disgree with the above assesment?

1. Is a global climatologist specializing in the question of global climate change.
2. Is working at one of the top universities and has an impressive research/publication record.

Not many I bet.

I'm on the political right? Ho ho!!! Hee-hee! I'm as close to being a socialist as you can get without being one. (My civil libertarianism confuses people.) I receive anonymous hate mail from people in my city where I live who deride me for being a Mormon and a Democrat. That's precious!

You're just a flaming left-wing bigot, presuming what you must to make your case!!! Combined with that right-wing bigot Graham, you two make an arrogant pair of academic bookends.

Why should I respond to the merits of your global warming comments? I did not suggest that it was fake and indeed said it wasn't. Rather, I point out that academic papers on the subject tend not to mention the arguments of the other side. Do you need proof?

rcrocket

Read in now:

I am talking about textbooks for college and graduate classes. For cases without high consensus, they would use phrases like "One popular theory is that" or "today many scientists believe that" etc. But one does not hear things like "today many scientists believe that the tyranosaurus went extinct before the advent of homosapiens".





Also, you misconstrue the situation about global warming:

Global warming as such is real. We are at least about 80% certain that a significant amount of the global warming is caused by human activity.

How many names can you get that fit in these two criteria that disgree with the above assesment?

1. Is a global climatologist specializing in the question of global climate change.
2. Is working at one of the top universities and has an impressive research/publication record.

Not many I bet.

[_Tarski]

You are the one who used the word "consensus," not me.
rcrocket

Are you really trying to win an argument by appeal to some minor semantic issue concering the word "consensus"?

[_rcrocket]

You are the one who used the word "consensus," not me.
rcrocket

Are you really trying to win an argument by appeal to some minor semantic issue concering the word "consensus"?

I don't see it as semantic. Should I disregard the meaning of your words? Tell me and I will.

As far as your last post on global warming, you lost me with your obfuscation. You ignore my points. I don't care one way or the other if global warming has its support. (I rather think it does.) My point was merely that academic papers rarely give space to countervailing points. You then refer me to textbooks. Academic papers probably outnumber textbooks 1000 to one. The bleeding edge of thinking is in papers, not textbooks.

So, when you insist that papers on mesoAmerican archaeology give no lip service to pre-Columbian horses you are (1) wrong because there are papers and books which do, and (2) a paper's author writing about pre-Columbian fauna has no need or duty to cite prevailing views, so the absence of such cite does not imply anything.

What do you think of the Ray paper finding domesticated horse and cattle among Mayan pre-Columbian pottery shards?

rcrocket

rcrocket

[Tator]

'm curious as to why you apparently won't read the cited Ray article. I thought you were an academic; if so, you would simply log onto your university's library and read the article yourself.

And, yes, there have been depictions of horses in Mesoamerican art. (The man riding the horse at Chitzenitza is a famous example; the toy horse pulling the cart is another; see references in Cyrus Gordon's book, "Before Columbus").

I'm not sure depictions in art have much meaning here. The Museum of Anthropologie in Mexico City (I've been there; seen them myself) have a depiction of a bearded European man dating back to around 600 AD to 1000 AD; there is a mural depicting two races of people, white and brown, fighting each other. My guide (a moonlighting university professor) at the Museum told me that these pieces of art demonstrated (1) Europeon contact with MesoAmerica long before Columbus, and (2) a now-extinct light-skinned peoples. But, what of it?

What do you mean by "literature?" The only "literature" of which I am familiar is Popul Vuh and since that post dates the conquest I put little faith in it.

You put no faith in the observations of the conquistidors?

I'm not an academic and don't have access to Ray's article. Have you read it yourself? Moreover, I want recent references. When LDS apologists offer a reference to support the possible existence of an anachronistic item in the Book of Mormon,
it is often either from an article in the fifties, without further support, or a reference from a quack like Barry Fell.

I have never heard of Cyrus Gordon nor his book, but from what I read from google searches, he sounds like another Barry Fell. He certainly isn't an expert in Mesoamerica, he's a scholar of ancient languages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/obitu ... 64&ei=5070

Now, tell me more about the man riding the horse and the horse pulling the cart. You know, the "famous" examples. If you give me enough details I may be able to figure out what you are talking about. It's a guessing game right now, because none of the books I've read about ancient Mesoamerica have mentioned these "famous" examples, and I don't recall sorenson or Brant gardner using these famous examples, either.

And what makes you think the bearded man was European?

And what statements of the conquistadors support the idea that horses were already in ancient America?

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I have done quite a bit of reading about ancient Mesoamerica in general, and also read a history of the horse in specific. Not one of these texts offered any of these evidences you refer to, which makes me suspect they are Barry Fell quality.

(ps, literature would have to include the four extant codices as well as the Popol Vuh)

[_rcrocket]

Mayan guide identifies a horse on a cenote wall in the Yucatan. Deep Inside the Yucatan, The New York Times, Feb. 23, 2007. However, the reference could mean anything. "In the depths of a limestone cavern, near a doorway to the Maya underworld, Filomeno Tomay took out a flashlight and held it up to the cave wall. ''Es un caballo,'' he said softly. (''This is a horse.'') Mr. Tomay, a stout 66-year-old Maya guide, stood deep inside Cenote Dzitnup, wielding a yellow beam for tourists to reveal a gestalt of conjured shapes on a wall of burled stone."

[_Tarski]

You are the one who used the word "consensus," not me.
rcrocket

Are you really trying to win an argument by appeal to some minor semantic issue concering the word "consensus"?

I don't see it as semantic. Should I disregard the meaning of your words? Tell me and I will.

How about not straining at a semantic gnat.

My point was merely that academic papers rarely give space to countervailing points.

I doubt that in my field a nonexpert could even make that judgement. So much is implicit and understood when the audience is assumed to be expert.

You then refer me to textbooks. Academic papers probably outnumber textbooks 1000 to one. The bleeding edge of thinking is in papers, not textbooks.

*sigh*
Come on!
That's the whole point. We want a gauge of what is considered solid settled science, not what is cutting edge, up in the air controversial stuff on the "bleeding edge".
Look, what goes in the up to date textbooks is a measure of what is considered essentially accepted science backed up by the most evidence. That's why I made the point. The textbooks are a touchstone for what is agreed upon mainstream science.

I repeat:
"the only completely honest thing that can be said, and should have been said on that web page, is that after decades of science and collecting of evidence, the consensus is as strong or stronger that ever that there were no precolumbian horses after the extinction at about 10,000 BC.

There it is. That's what should have been said. Period.
Anything else is just designed to create a false sense of the situation."