[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:

> 
> agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu (Domingo Martinez) wrote:
> >This is an ad hominem comment, albeit written as nicely as I could manage. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >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.
> >
> >
> >Domingo Martinez-Castilla
> >agdndmc@showme.missouri.edu
> 
> 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.

> 
> Randy
> 
> -- 
> _______________
> Randal Allison, Ph.D.
> http://cis.tamu.edu/~ralliso
>    --If you can't be happy naturally, be unnaturally happy.
                or be unhappy naturally -
> 
> 
> 
>
Follow-Ups: References: