Archaeologica.org

uniface wrote:What's wrong with acknowledging a valuable book as a valuable book within its own parameters and on its own terms ? .....

Nothing wrong with it at all but remember there's an older demographic here who love to parade their narrow wisdom and p!ss on the knowledge of others-that's one reason why this forum has stayed so small over the years.

Of course every Archaeo cyber discussion forum extant suffers from the same malaise-as does the whole profession.

If Professor Firestone had trotted out native american legends as a basis for his comet theory how far do you think he would have gotten?

It depends, Min.

Even among academics, boring is boring, and exciting is exciting.

That's "why" (if you will) stuff like Holy Blood, Holy Grail goes ballistic. Offer people a fresh and intriguing perspective on the big picture, and they respond.

Many roads lead to Rome.

It depends, Min.

He would have been ignored.

You think ?

Doesn't that Hawkins or Hawkings fellow (whatever his name is) write popular books that sell well ?

The difference possibly being that they're interesting ?

boring is boring, and exciting is exciting.

Which wouldn't, of course, automatically make 'boring' wrong nor 'exciting' correct would it?

Roy.

uniface wrote:You think ?

Doesn't that Hawkins or Hawkings fellow (whatever his name is) write popular books that sell well ?

The difference possibly being that they're interesting ?

Richard Dawkins? Writes books which attempt to explain complex biological principles to laymen. He does not try to say that evolution happens because the Hopi saw a bird shit on a rock.

Shame though Min!

Roy.

Stephen Hawking ?

Minimalist wrote:I'll take an iridium layer, or ice core analysis, magnetic microspherules, or nanodiamonds over some ancient poetry any day.

uniface wrote:All of which they're still sorting out and arguing over.

And they're not 'sorting out and arguing over' legends, myths, tales, poetry, and rumors...? Those are 'set in stone' and true without a shadow of a doubt...?

You'll love the bible!

I'm according them the benefit of the doubt.

As I do with you, amigo . . .

uniface wrote: I'm according them the benefit of the doubt.

Last time I did that we got a criminal war on Iraq.
And every American citizen today knows Bush c.s. lied through their teeth about those WMDs and used it as a pretext for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of young Americans and Iraqi citizens, and (will) cost the US taxpayer trillions (for centuries to come). The very definition of high treason! Yet the perpetraitors (pun intended) are not even indicted.

In the US war criminals go unpunished.

According the benefit of the doubt has proven very stupid.

It is extended on a selective basis.

"Talking snakes" and "world covering floods" deserve the benefit of the doubt?

What doubt?

uniface wrote:It is extended on a selective basis.

Then it is very stupid 'on a selective basis'...

Flakey!

The narrower the perspective, the more categorical the pronouncement.