Re: Amerindian navigators and Eurocentrism in scholarship

[dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller)]

On 13 Sep 1997 14:58:30 GMT, in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, Yuri Kuchinsky
wrote:

>Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: On 12 Sep 1997 16:34:42 GMT, in sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, Yuri Kuchinsky
>: wrote:
>
>	...
>
>: >Here we see very clearly how Bernard operates. ... I wonder if
>: >Bernard cares about the truth even a little bit...
>
>: Here we have Yuri, who asks people not to use ad hominems, making
>: another nasty personal attack on someone. 
>
>Here, again, we see Doug's biased, partial and one-sided nature expressed
>very clearly. How can concern about methodology that I express be
>perceived as a "nasty personal attack"? 

Suggesting that someone doesn't care about the truth even a little bit is a
neutral methodological comment and not a nasty personal attack?  

This is truly absurd, Doug. Your
>overactive, if one-sided, imagingation is running away with you again. 
>This is criticising the mote in your opponent's eye, while ignoring the
>beam in your own eye. In other words, Doug Weller, the hypocrite. 
>

But Yuri, who continually bemoans others using ad hominems and personal attacks,
is not a hypocrite.  At least not in Yuri-speak.

>
>: No, he's trying to get you to concentrate instead of posting randomly on
>a wide : range of subjects whenever you read something new.  Your concept
>of scholarship : is a bit strange -- but then you think everyone else is
>wrong.  If you want to : discuss cowrie shells, fine. But be prepared to
>discuss them, not run away when : people ask for evidence. 
>
>I'm not running away anywhere, and I stand by the information that I
>posted. I guess you would have been running away by now, seeing how many
>people are trying to prove me wrong. But you should not judge everyone by
>your own rather lowly standards, Doug. It may surprise you, but some
>people actually believe that the historical truth is worth fighting for,

But that isn't what you are doing. You've decided what the truth is and you are
trying to prove it.  I'm sure I could be convinced that there had been Vikings
further inland, but I don't think anything would convince you that, for
instance, the KRS was a fraud.  Or, to be more precise, you don't appear to be
interested in looking for evidence to disprove it, only to prove it.  You are
the one with little concern for truth.

You stand by what you post -- I agree with that. You aren't interested in
checking it out to see if it is correct, or at looking at the primary sources.

>even if many others are trying to run away from it, or to pretend it's not
>there. All the intellectual philistines like Mr. Weller will not make a
>big difference to me if I see that the real factual evidence supports
>these theories. 
>
>It's the biased and overcritical people like you, Doug, who stand in the
>way of progress in scholarship. 

Whereas Yuri has a completely open mind and isn't critical at all (which he
makes painfully obvious).

Doug