[meteorite-list] Theories, facts, and personal attacks

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:59:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <122343.5923.qm_at_web36905.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi Bob -

>E.P. and List,

>I see no reason to lower the bar on this discussion
by >resorting to personal attacks against Jason. You
>evidently have never met this young man, or you might
>be embarrassed by your treatment of him here.

All I know of Jason is his behaviour in his recent
posts, and his failure to learn anything despite
Sterling's repeated attempts to point him in the right

What I personally find irritating is his repeated
attributions to me of mentions of "airbursts", and his
repeated confusions of the 10,900 BCE events and the
31,000 impact event.

>I've known Jason for many years, and have found him
to >be among the more articulate, educated, and
>scientifically-minded of individuals --
>not just among his age-group, but even when compared
>to people many years his senior.

He is among the best of our young people? Great Spirit
help us!

>Are you really so sure that his understanding of
>impact dynamics is any worse than your own?


>(Yes, E.P., you have latched on to some very curious
>notions about what is and is not possible during a
NEO >impact.)

Do share your wisdom, then, Bob - I've made some real
blunders over the years, but thankfully I've had those
here who gently would try to point me in the right

>As for a comet impact in 10,900 BCE being a "fact" as
>opposed to a theory or a hypothesis, it has not been
>demonstrated (at least not to my satisfaction) that
>the *effects* you attribute to a comet impact are
>~uniquely~ explained by such.

If you have any other explanation for the impactites
which have been found, do share it.

>Mega-fauna die off can be caused by many things;

True; but not so abruptly and widely.

>even if a die-off is demonstrated to temporally
>coincide with evidence of a large impact, coincidence
>is not proof of causation.

Argue causation with me after you don't eat for three
or four months.

>It's certainly strongly ~suggestive~, but it does not
>rise to the level of fact.

>And frankly I see no reason (other than hubris) to
>elevate the language from "theory" to "fact", when
>"theory" is a perfectly fine way of describing the
>level of understanding.

Dismissing the impactite layer as "theory" does not
strike me as being scientific, and it isn't really
"hubris" either, its simply that the mind has trouble
accepting that you, your loved ones, everyone you ever
knew and everything you ever did can be blown off the
face of the Earth in an instant without any warning.

If you have any other explanation for it, then please
share it.

>"Theory" gets such a bum rap these days, e.g. "it's
>only a theory." Theories are great! General
>relativity, evolution, the Big Bang --
>theories all of them.

Yeah. Right now one of my working theories is that
hyper-velocity impacts are releasing high energy
neutrons and protons.

Another working theory of mine is that earlier iron
impacts can be used as models to try and find more
data from other large iron impacts.


E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

-----Original Message-----

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
Received on Wed 26 Dec 2007 06:59:14 PM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb