[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)
I see a couple of holes in the following discussion.
On 11 Jan 1997, Randal Allison wrote:
> email@example.com (Domingo Martinez) wrote:
> >This is an ad hominem comment, albeit written as nicely as I could manage.
> >And do not expect for people in these forums to be able to disprove stuff that
> >you put forward, because "disproving" cannot be done, as people have
> >repeatedly said here. Even if you submit that, say, Cahokia was built using
> >digital computers from outer space, nobody can disprove that, and, at least in
> >my case, I will not loose any sleep because of that "inability" to send the
> >proposition to oblivion. Is your inability to understand this what pushes you
> >to post always the same stuff ("I believe... no matter what")?
> >I have no idea why you do this, why you need so desperately that pre-Columbian
> >contact existed. If you were a professional, I could perhaps understand your
> >urge to find a niche for yourself (even though most of your scholarly sources
> >are written by people for whom pre-Columbian diffusion has not been the
> >driving force of their careers) in a crowded field.
> >End of piece, venting done. Now flame me.
> >Domingo Martinez-Castilla
> Why flame you?? What you've said is true and fair enough. As I pointed out
> to Yuri back when he stated that the Olmec were Polynesians, it is his
> responsibility to defend his stance. None of us who disagree with his
> point of view need to supply any reasons why we do. Same goes for his
> supporters. That's how rhetoric works--make a point and defend it. Your
your view of rhetoric seems to assumes bivalent logic. a real life
situation may be trivalent - as one language - Aymara - of the New World
used as Inca priests. That is define rhetoric - there are many types -
some that work - and others that do not - depending on the issue.
> audience is allowed to attack your stance, but you still carry the burden
> of evidence. Think of it as a criminal case with a prosecuter (Yuri in
> this case) and a defense attorney (the readers). Just as in a court of
> law, the defense doesn't have to prove anything, just raise doubts. It's
> up to the prosecuter to prove the charge.
lawyers are famous for being actors - playing a role - that at its
core is false or false face. Again this view appears grossly flawed.
> Many of us view the newsgroups as the cyber versions of professional
> meetings, say along the lines of AAA, AFS, SHA, &c. That being said, as a
> whole, Yuri and company have gotten off lightly. I've seen what happens to
> the touters of the "Wild Ass Theory (WAT) of the Day" at numerous
> meetings, and what's been dished out on the newsgroups so far is
> light-weight stuff. Yuri is not a professional, as he has stated, so
> perhaps we've been lenient. I prefer to think of it in terms of teachers
> allowing a pupil to make mistakes--they may never get it, but they usually
> do in the end.
Science lets facts determine outcomes - not empty 'political' rhetoric.
> Randal Allison, Ph.D.
> --If you can't be happy naturally, be unnaturally happy.
or be unhappy naturally -