Re: Attention: David Carl PChristiansen

Ian wrote:
On 13 Sep, 20:02, Marshall Price <d0213...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yowie wrote:
Much like Thiering's book is a *book* and not a *thesis*

If something Thiering publishes in a book makes her disreputable, how
much more disreputable are the people who contribute to magazines!

I don't think anybody has said that Thiering is disreputable, simply
that she does not appear to have published her theories in the normal
scholarly way.

That should bring an end to the thread. It was the implication that she
couldn't be a "reputable scholar" to which I took umbrage.

I can't speak for David, but "it's archaeology" probably _did_ refer to
archaeology. Thiering's work is interdisciplinary; it's led her far
afield from her original interest -- theology.

That sounds alarm bells. Fleischmann and Pons are excellent
electrochemists who made fools of themselves when they tried to do
nuclear physics. Jones is an excellent electrochemist who made a fool
of himself when he tried to do structural engineering. Laithwaite was
an excellent electrical engineer who made a fool of himself when he
tried to do theoretical mechanics. Academics stray from their fields
of expertise at their peril.

Alarm bells are nothing new. Nor are fools. I'm impressed by your
ability to recall so many of them, but I'm a lot more impressed by
Thiering's dogged investigation of "fields of expertise," such as
history, carbon-dating, calendar calculations, the identification and
biographies of people formerly little-known to history (and revealed by
her technique), ancient Greek and Hebrew linguistics, etc. It took
courage, as well as dedication, to risk such peril.

If you ask me, this is all off-topic and biased. Thiering's published
lots of papers, and is a well-established, reputable scholar.

But that does not mean that everything she writes is correct. Or do
you accept that "The Hobbit" is true? After all, Tolkien was a well-
established, reputable scholar. Argument from authority is never very
convincing and is at its worst when we are told to accept someone's
views on Subject A (paleography) because they know a lot about Subject
B (theology).

Right. Who said otherwise? By the way, the only Tolkien I've read is
_The Jerusalem Bible_, to which he was a contributor.

Thiering's theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls stand or fall on their
merits, not on her reputation - just as my theories on non-linear
diffusion algorithms stand on their merits and not my
"reputation" (sic).

That's how we scholars and academics do things.

It's not how you're doing things in this thread! :)

Does non-linear diffusion relate to the flow of heat?

--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
.