|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 1, 2013 15:52:52 GMT
Well done for checking this out, I just assumed Vridar knew something I didn't know. Experience has taught me this is invariably an unwise assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 1:50:06 GMT
G'day Vridar/Neil. I am interested in this matter, having just finished reading some of the archaeology reports. I am not much interested in calling anyone out, and I don't think anyone has to do it at all. Sometimes live and let live is a better policy I think. But can I clarify by asking you a couple of questions please? 1. Are you saying that there are substantial failings in the architectural reports by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the peer reviewed publishing process, or are you only disputing with Tim? 2. Are you saying you and Salm are totally willing to be persuaded by the evidence on this and don't have any preconceived opinion on it? Thanks. I like the idea of live and let live, but I also feel we have responsibilities when we see someone make public statements that are misinformed and promoting anti-rationalism to speak out. No, I am not saying there are substantial failings in the architectural reports of the IAA. In fact, I never knew the IAA issued any architectural reports. Their business is antiquities, not architecture. There is a subtle difference if you care to look it up. I addressed the report of Pfann, Voss and Rapuano and am saying that there are substantial oversights in the claims Tim made about this report. You should read the post. It is all very clear. Nor am I addressing the peer-review publishing system, although I made several positive comments about it. I am correcting Tim's misinformed and ignorant claims. I cannot speak for Salm, but of course I am willing to be persuaded by the evidence. Aren't you? If you read the post you will have noticed that it is the evidence that I am asking for. If there is evidence for the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus, then that'll be nice. I'll say Nazareth existed then. No problem. I certainly never had any preconceived view that Nazareth did not exist and frankly, I am not dogmatic about it either way. Would you be willing to accept evidence that it did not exist then? But Tim wants us to believe without evidence and on the mere authority of a report produced by people with strong ideological interests in its conclusions and that opens more questions than it answers. The rational position to take is that we should wait till we see the details. We should also request the authors of the report justify using Judean dating for Galilean artefacts. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 1:57:18 GMT
Good to see Vridar contining its fine tradition of endorsing unqualified amateurs with illogical, unsubstantiated fringe theories over trained professionals upholding the academic consensus.  'Anti-rationalist' is the first thing that springs to mind when I think 'René Salm.' So, you cavalierly dismiss the detailed response to O'Neill's assertions -- a response that I substantiated. No, I am not endorsing "unqualified amateurs" over "trained professionals" -- I am endorsing valid questions and arguments and evidence from any source against cloudy information in a report that begs more questions than it answers. We are an educated generation and one point of that education was to prepare us to be able to hold authorities accountable. Reputable authorities and professionals are willing to declare all their data to verify their results under public scrutiny. The authors of the report have not done that. And O'Neill has made misleading claims about the report. That's what I'm addressing. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 2:01:23 GMT
I read this claim in your article. You provided no evidence for this. So let's look at Ross Joseph Voss, one of the other authors. Here is his professional profile, showing he is an archaeologist with 'Thirty eight years of archaeological excavation experience'. On what basis do you say he is not an archaeologist? The other author is Stephen Pfann, 'Researcher/Archaeologist University of the Holy Land'. On what basis do you say he is not an archaeologist? Hoo boy, you guys can't even read. First you say the IAA produces an architectural report and now you can't even read what you are attacking. I made it very clear that there are three archaeologists who wrote the report but that only one of these has formal qualifications in archaeology. The other two are not qualified. They have experience, yes, but not qualifications. O'Neill simply did not know what he was talking about. He often just assumes stuff like that and you guys swallow it. I guess you get what you deserve. Or maybe now you'll say that O'Neill only meant "informally qualified" -- yeh right. |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 2:06:04 GMT
It's ironic, because mythicists have never cared about formal qualifications in the past. Under their rubric, any idiot is automatically qualified to challenge and refute the academic consensus. Yet qualifications suddenty become important whenever it suits them. Garbage. If mythicists like Doherty and Salm never cared about qualifications in the past they would not have bothered to research the scholarly works and reports. Interesting that not one of you appeared capable of gainsaying a single point I made rebutting O'Neill's vacuous claims about Salm and Nazareth. (The closest you got was to pretend I said only one author was an archaeologist.) So I guess O'Neill's post is shown to be exactly what I expose it to be - a bit of ignorant anti-rationalist dogmatism. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 3, 2013 5:48:02 GMT
No, I am not saying there are substantial failings in the architectural reports of the IAA. In fact, I never knew the IAA issued any architectural reports. Their business is antiquities, not architecture. There is a subtle difference if you care to look it up. ;D I was aware of the "subtle" difference - we Aussie's know about these things, we just don't spell so well!  Sorry about typing the wrong word, but I'm sure you figured it out! I'm not sure why you think I didn't read your comments, for I did read them, and while they were very clear about the things that you write, they weren't clear (to me) about the questions that I asked, which is why I asked them. This comes close to the question I was asking, so may I now clarify with you please: 1. What "ideological interest" are you alleging here, and what is your basis for saying that this makes their report of questionable authority? 2. Do you think ideological interest inevitably makes someone's writings questionable? How has the peer review process failed to detect and correct the bias in this case? 3. I would guess you too have an "ideological interest", as I do, as most people do. Why should I not question your report on the same grounds? And since this matter comes down to the interpretation of archaeological finds, why should I trust your interpretation against those of multiple experts, since you all have "ideological interest"? I don't think I would be all that disturbed either way. Nazareth was a small village and the lack of archaeological (or architectural!) evidence for it would hardly be surprising. Tim can doubtless speak for himself, but my recollection of his post was that he was decidedly not asking us to believe without evidence, and I think you misrepresent him in saying that. Rather, he was arguing that the conclusions of peer reviewed archaeologists was good evidence. I thought they had done exactly that in one of the reports you cited. Was I wrong in thinking that? I should ask you this, even though it wasn't addressed to me, for I am interested to know. What formal qualifications in archaeology are there? Do you know know many archaeologists working and publishing in the field have such qualifications, as opposed to qualifications in ancient history, etc? Are you saying that Pfann and Voss's qualifications are not germane to their work? Are you suggesting that their qualifications and experience are no better than yours or Mr Salm's? What difference does this comment of your actually make to the veracity of the reports, do you think? Thanks again for your information. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 3, 2013 7:52:43 GMT
Garbage. If mythicists like Doherty and Salm never cared about qualifications in the past they would not have bothered to research the scholarly works and reports. I was referring to their own qualifications, not those of others. If that wasn't obvious from the context, I canwrite a Little Golden Book version of my original post and submit it in a brand new post just for you. Obviously mythicists will cherry-pick the works of genuine scholars. That's old news. Wow, delusion much? We haven't bothered to post an extensive rebuttal and you assume this means we're incapable? You genuinely believe that's the only possible reason? Seriously? Talk about irrational. By the same logic, Dawkins must be incapable of refuting my latest paper on the New Atheists. He still hasn't written a single word about it!  |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 8:23:00 GMT
I was referring to their own qualifications, not those of others. If that wasn't obvious from the context, I canwrite a Little Golden Book version of my original post and submit it in a brand new post just for you. Oh, so you really mean context counts? From the initial responses to my article that took my words out of context in order to frame leading questions I thought the rules here were that context is irrelevant. Sorry, I'll try to keep up in future. Wow, delusion much? We haven't bothered to post an extensive rebuttal and you assume this means we're incapable? You genuinely believe that's the only possible reason? Seriously? Talk about irrational. By the same logic, Dawkins must be incapable of refuting my latest paper on the New Atheists. He still hasn't written a single word about it! Ah, so you still have no rebuttal. And try to cover up your failure by saying you don't have an "extensive rebuttal"! LOL -- You mean you have none at all! So all you do is say "Ha! We have a rebuttal and can rebut your post any time but we just don't want to right now!" :-) Yeh, right. Of course!! ;-) Oh you are a bunch of clowns. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 3, 2013 11:17:45 GMT
Hoo boy, you guys can't even read. First you say the IAA produces an architectural report and now you can't even read what you are attacking. I never said 'the IAA produces an architectural report'. Why did you make that claim? That is not what you said. I do not see the words 'formal qualifications in archaeology' anywhere, nor the words 'there are three archaeologists who wrote the report'. If they are not qualified why would you call them archaeologists? If they are qualified, why would you say they are not? Again I must ask, on what basis did you make your claim that they are not qualified simply because they 'have experience, yes, but not qualifications'? You can't simply make these claims and expect people to believe you without evidence, you need to actually substantiate them. No, he clearly meant 'qualified', just as you clearly meant 'qualified'. You are the one changing your story, not him; you are now taking refuge in the term 'formally qualified', which you claim is what you actually meant in the first place. But you didn't actually say that. Tim said they were qualified, and you denied that they were qualified. Now you're changing your tune to 'they're not formally qualified'. But even if they aren't, so what? The issue at stake is whether or not they are sufficiently qualified to be considered archaeologists. You have provided no evidence that they are not, and since you say you acknowledge they are archaeologists, you are contradicting yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 3, 2013 11:28:17 GMT
Ah, so you still have no rebuttal. Neil, you haven't attempted to falsify Tim's case. That's the problem here. Even if every criticism you made of Tim's post was generously accepted as accurate, it doesn't affect the conclusion he drew or the conclusions drawn by the relevant scholars. You didn't even bother addressing his entire case, you just picked at a few bits and pieces. Noticeably, you didn't demonstrate a logically coherent chain of argument demonstrating that his case is flawed. When you can make a substantial case demonstrating his conclusion is at fault, it will be worth reading and rebutting, but at present you can't even represent his argument correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jan 3, 2013 11:30:49 GMT
(The closest you got was to pretend I said only one author was an archaeologist.) Neil, Sankari never said any such thing. You aren't reading his posts with sufficient care. Could I be clear however on the fact that you are now saying you believe all three authors are archaeologists? |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 21:11:28 GMT
I never said 'the IAA produces an architectural report'. Why did you make that claim? Oh, now all of a sudden we switch back to ignoring the context, do we? You guys keep changing the rules here. I said "you guys" so the context was clearly what "you guys" say and that's certainly what I did hear from your mob. I addressed it. I was the only one to correct the one in your crowd who indicated you (plural) did not know the difference between architecture and archaeology. Or were you all silent out of embarrassment? I took your silence as agreement. That is not what you said. I do not see the words 'formal qualifications in archaeology' anywhere, nor the words 'there are three archaeologists who wrote the report'. If they are not qualified why would you call them archaeologists? If they are qualified, why would you say they are not? Gosh, you are so damn right. Again, context is tossed out the window whenever you post but only applies when I post, I see. Here is what I wrote: "The Nazareth Village Farm report was the work of three persons. Only one of them, Rapuano, is a trained archaeologist who, however, customarily works in Judea far to the south. It is Rapuano who dated the pottery at the NVF and who, Salm shows, wrongly uses early Judean parallels (e.g. from Jericho and Gezer) to date the Galilean pottery at Nazareth, thus producing false early datings. Another of the NVF report authors has extensive field experience but is untrained . . . . Later O’Neill will refer to all three authors of the report as “ three qualified archaeologists” — unaware, it seems, that only one of the authors has qualifications in archaeology!" Now I submit that the context in that last sentence makes it clear that I am referring to "formal qualifications". I make it clear that another has extensive field experience but is not formally trained. (The third does have field experience but it is much narrower in scope.) Again I must ask, on what basis did you make your claim that they are not qualified simply because they 'have experience, yes, but not qualifications'? You can't simply make these claims and expect people to believe you without evidence, you need to actually substantiate them. What? You need evidence for claims made? But you swallow O'Neill's post that I demonstrate has no evidential basis and where he claims evidence he is flat wrong. You just don't want to address that - - I know you can, of course. You just don't want to! ;-) If you look at the hyperlinks on the names in my post you will actually be taken directly to the pages where you see the evidence. Do you know how to use hyperlinks? Or have you done your own web search and discovered, to your embarrassment, that only Rapuano has a qualification in archaeology and the others only have field experience. That is exactly the point being addressed by Salm in his SBL paper, isn't it. Religious nutters without qualifications going out there to find proof the Bible is true and calling themselves archaeologists because they do it all the time -- "field experience". That's yours and O'Neill's definition of "qualified archaeologists"  ? You are a bunch of clowns! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by vridar on Jan 3, 2013 21:19:12 GMT
Even if every criticism you made of Tim's post was generously accepted as accurate, it doesn't affect the conclusion he drew or the conclusions drawn by the relevant scholars. . . . . Even if, as you now imply you admit, every criticism I made about Tim's claims was true, Tim is still right!!!! Well, you've been good for a belly laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 3, 2013 23:52:02 GMT
Ah, so you still have no rebuttal. And try to cover up your failure by saying you don't have an "extensive rebuttal"! LOL -- You mean you have none at all! You remind me of a Young Earth Creationist I know, who regularly spams atheist forums with his gibberish 'refutations' of evolution. When they ignore him, he claims it's because they cannot refute his arguments. Funnily enough he spouts the same irrational, triumphalist crowing that we've seen from you in this thread. No, that's not what I said. Your dishonest habit of putting words into people's mouths is characteristic of your fundamentalist worldview. On the few occasions that I have bothered to post on your blog I've found constructive dialogue virtually impossible. This tells me there is little point in trying to engage with you on any subject. Nowadays when your latest blog post arrives in my inbox I have a quick look, a yawn, and another sip of my coffee. Then I get on with life. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 3, 2013 23:52:49 GMT
Even if every criticism you made of Tim's post was generously accepted as accurate, it doesn't affect the conclusion he drew or the conclusions drawn by the relevant scholars. . . . . Even if, as you now imply you admit, every criticism I made about Tim's claims was true, Tim is still right!!!! Well, you've been good for a belly laugh. This is poor literacy, irrationality at its finest, or both. Whatever the case, it's clear that a course in critical thinking would do you a world of good. I suggest you re-read Fortigurn's post. Carefully. |
|
Sorry about typing the wrong word, but I'm sure you figured it out!
? You are a bunch of clowns!