Re: Some questions for Christainsen

On Sep 2, 8:44 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David" <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1188758724.546562.50610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Sep 2, 1:51 pm, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Sep, 18:05, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:33 am, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The scholarly world has no obligation to read and review every
crackpot theory which comes along. If we had, we'd never get any
serious work done.

You have no knowledge of the rules of the scholarly world in Dr.
Thiering's field. So, contrary to your opinion, there was every
obligation.

I'm sorry, David, but I don't agree with you. Academics have no
obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. To get
academic attention, you have (one has) to play by academic rules. You
submit work for peer-reviewed publication. That means you need good
evidence, not just sensational conclusions, and you need to justify
every step of logic and deduction you use.

What makes you think she did not already get thru your hurdles when
she already got published enough in certain peer-reviewed
publications?

Thats not how peer reviewed articles work. They don't look at the author and
think "well, that author has submitted good papers in the past, we'll let
this new one through based solely on past reputation". Each and every paper
a person submits to a peer reviewed journal is judged on its own merits,
*not* on who the author happens to be. An academic is really only as good as
the last paper they got published.

I believe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Dr. Thiering long ago was published in peer-reviewed journals and has
a
respectable list of such articles, which I have already passed on.
Are you
unaware of the list? You can get one of the lists from the Wikipedia
article
on Dr. Thiering but then again, she once provided her own list of her
publications on my former yahoo forum.

Two, recent such articles by Dr. Thiering were published in Dead
Sea Discoveries, the top professional journal -

The Temple Scroll Courts Governed by Precise Times
Author: Barbara Thiering
Source: Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 11, Number 3, 2004 , pp.
336-358(23)
Publisher: BRILL

THE QUMRAN SUNDIAL AS AN ODOMETER USING FIXED LENGTHS OF HOURS
Author: Thiering, Barbara
Source: Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 9, Number 3, 2002 , pp.
347-363(17)
Publisher: BRILL

Which is why Thiering has published some papers - the papers that have been
published have been reviewed by her peers (ie, people with qualifications
and knowledge similar to her own) and have met the usual requirements for
publication in a peer reviewed journal. In *those* papers her methods have
been repeatable, and her conclusions sound given the evidence presented *in
the paper* (although possibly wrong - thats what the 'repeatably' means and
how Fleischmann and Pons were proved wrong in the end. But thats science for
you).

Thiering's papers that *haven't* been published are the crackpot ones, where
she *doesn't* establish a method that is repeatable by an independant body,
and her conclusions are conjecture and assertions rather than based on the
evidence presented in the paper.

I mean you no disrespect but you don't know what you are talking
about when you fling around the word "crackpot". You must withdraw
the term or face the consequences of loss of face. I don't understand
why you run her down.

I understand her pesher method and repeatedly have provided the
gateway to Thiering pesher for laypeople in terms of Thiering time
indications
in specific NT text as referring to Essene solar calendar. Nobody has
got
it yet. Engineer bailed out part way thru. I never said it was easy.

Heck, whilst I don't publish in peer reviewed *journals*, every single one
of my papers is reviewed *by my peers, in my scientific community* where I
work (and hte patent I co-hold took *forever* to get the words right).
Sometimes they refuse to publish it *as is*, not because I've got things
'wrong' but merely because they can't follow my logic, or that my
conclusions don't match the evidence *as presented* (even if everyone knows
that the conclusions are correct - they must match the evidence *as
presented in the paper* or they are worthless). Thats the whole *point* of
peer review, to make sure that the *science* is sound.

You don't get it; FLAT STATEMENT - the entire system of peer review
broke down badly in the case of Dr. Thiering and I say it is grossly
unfair.

Perhaps Thiering is right. However, until she manages to produce a peer
reviewed paper spelling out her methodology, she has no hope of being taken
seriously. A few books, a web page and a yahoo group are not, repeat *not*,
peer reviewed journals and cannot be taken as serious academic work. You can
take her work on *faith* and thats fine, feel free, but it isn't science, of
any description, and that is why we are arguing here.

Yowie

Dr. Thiering is right and that's the point. You are cordially invited
to read
even one of her peer-reviewed articles to judge for yourself.

IMHO her best article to reach you is -

"The Three and a Half Years of Elijah", Novum Testamentum 23,1, 1981,
pp.41-55
(available to you on JSTOR if your local library or university library
subscribes to it on the internet)

because it shows in a crystal-clear way Essene solar calendar in
certain Daniel
and NT verses.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some questions for Christainsen
    ... obligation to respond to every crackpot idea lobbed our way. ... have been published in peer reviewed journals ... In *those* papers her methods ... peer review, to make sure that the *science* is sound. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... not given due process in peer review, ... would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that ... makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect. ... Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... my responses to you are peer reviewed. ... that was subject to peer review? ... The articles in "Vikings, The North Atlantic Saga" are in fact ... the volume are include voluminous citations to peer-reviewed material. ...
    (sci.archaeology)