Archaeologica.org

hello? all i can hear is the echo of my footsteps in the rotunda of what used to be archaeologica.

despite its many previous faults, its no reason to abandon the site.

in my opinion.

john

It's a Saturday night.....some of these people may have lives.

Minimalist wrote:It's a Saturday night.....some of these people may have lives.

yourself included. yes?


john

I'm retired.


I don't count.

i'm not.

my life consists of just how many pieces i can fit into 24/7/365 without totally blowing my doors off.

and i'm not complaining.

j

Been there...done that....don't miss it at all.

Minimalist wrote:Been there...done that....don't miss it at all.

and - in case you missed my point -

you do count

retirement or not

thats just a fact.


john

I'll keep the doors on, though.

Thank you.

Hey, John.
You seem to have very high expectations of this forum!

What would you like to see happen here?

Given the almost worldwide distribution of posters on this board one would think that long periods of silence would be avoided.



The Sun Never Sets on Michelle's Empire, to coin a phrase.

hello? all i can hear is the echo of my footsteps in the rotunda of what used to be archaeologica

we are not here to entertain you .

What put you in such good mood Arch. It's Sunday. Give it a rest.

it is monday here and it was a long night

stan wrote:Hey, John.
You seem to have very high expectations of this forum!

What would you like to see happen here?

(more) actual thinking and - for lack of a better word - repartee on a whole lot of subjects that are ambiguous or unsupported by the establishment. who was it - galileo - who got severely censured by the existing apparat for the outreageous idea that the sun didn't circle the earth?

it is my position, supported by not only my personal history (accident of the scientific environment i grew up in - but i'm not a pro), but also by pretty extensive reading, that the scientific establishment is conservative and self protective to a fault. and also its evil twin, the religio-scientific establishment.

so what we see is usually a whole lot of regurgitation and repetition of "fact" usu. established by other "authorities". cf, the various biblical threads on this forum.

i am the first one to admire a well constructed argument, or thesis, with any and all supporting evidence.

what i despise is projectile vomiting of "proven" fact, to the end of overwhelming the adversary in a tidal wave of pseudo intellectual puke.

to me, the original source of scientific thought is that there is no absolute proof for anything. ever.

the only thing in the universe to which i can apply the modifier "immortal" is "change".

thus science is a process of inquiry.

and, secondly, that that the goal of science is not the "final solution", or some kind of zero-sum endgame, generally called "proof".

"proof", to me, proves that you have given up thinking. you have stopped. dead-ended. you're intellectual roadkill.

science is understanding process. one of the great ironies, to my way of thinking, is that no matter who we look to - gregor mendel, or archimedes, or heraclitus, or darwin/huxley, or maxwell (remember maxwell's demon?), or heisenberg, or madame curie or or or. At the heart of it, they spent their lives understanding process. Another word for this is transformation.

same as any old siberian shaman

and by the way i'm not throwing rocks at this forum or anyone in this forum.

i just want more, and better. to this end i push myself first.


john

john wrote: ...it is my position, supported by not only my personal history (accident of the scientific environment i grew up in - but i'm not a pro), but also by pretty extensive reading, that the scientific establishment is conservative and self protective to a fault. and also its evil twin, the religio-scientific establishment.

I cannot completely agree with this, but I can certainly see where you're coming from.

It seems to me that scientists are absolutely avid to come up with something, anything that would contradict what people at this forum sometimes refer to as "orthodox" ideas. I mean, such a contradiction, if shown accurate, would make a scientist's career. Think about it.

john wrote:to me, the original source of scientific thought is that there is no absolute proof for anything. ever.

...thus science is a process of inquiry.

I hope everyone at this forum reads, re-reads, and re-re-reads the above. It is nothing but absolute truth in it's purest distillation.

Stop, please, using the phrase "scientific proof" or "scientifically proven" as if such a thing existed. Science claims to have no "proof." Science provides us with useable models of reality, not reality itself. Usually, these models work only for as long as we are limited in our measurements of reality. A good example of this is the history of the measurement of the speed of light, with it's concomitant history of the model for what light is and how it operates. Read about it sometime.

At any rate, there is no such thing as "scientific proof." There is only scientific evidence which either supports, or does not support, current or past theories. "Theory" is another word for "model."

john wrote:and, secondly, that that the goal of science is not the "final solution", or some kind of zero-sum endgame, generally called "proof".

"proof", to me, proves that you have given up thinking. you have stopped. dead-ended. you're intellectual roadkill.

Absolute, objective, final and indisputable proof exists only in one area - Mathematics, the most beautiful pastime imaginable. However, the only reason proof exists at all in Mathematics is because all Mathematics is built on assertions - called "axioms" - which are taken to be truths at the outset, in order to have a set of rules within which to play with the various mathematical aspects of the system of rules you have started with. IOW, all of Mathematics is in the mind, and not in the world.

john wrote:...and by the way i'm not throwing rocks at this forum or anyone in this forum.

i just want more, and better. to this end i push myself first.
john

Well, you've certainly contributed with the post I just quoted. I too lament the dearth of intelligent discourse at this site, given all the potential the site obviously has.

At times, it's difficult to read here, let alone post, because of the willful ignorance that is so apparent. But after reading your lament, and your acknowledgement of personal rwesponsibility, I also will endeavor toward the same end.

From here on out, I will search for John's posts first, when I come to Archaeologica.
Harte