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

From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:45:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20071227014556.YPLE28314.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net_at_fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>

You guys remind me of the PortaPotties at a Rock Concert...on the fourth day!
Give it a rest and go take (this applies to both/all of you) your dog
for a long walk.


At 04:59 PM 12/26/2007, E.P. Grondine wrote:
>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.
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Received on Wed 26 Dec 2007 08:45:55 PM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb