[meteorite-list] Reply to J. Grossman

From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:31:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4C1515E9.7040007_at_usgs.gov>

The NomCom don't approve classifications. We approve meteorite names.
We require an "authoritative classification" in order to approve a name,
and we may demand evidence before we accept a given classification, or
we may require that certain conventions be followed. But we only
approve the name. The only vote we ever have is to accept a name.

No scientific interpretations, including classification of meteorites,
should ever be considered "official." Any organization that thinks
they have the last word on truth has crossed into the domain of
religion. Although, MetSoc does announce official names, it definitely
does not sanction official classifications. Those are settled in the
open literature.

Jeff

p.s., I don't dispute that these meteorites are chondrites.
On 2010-06-13 1:06 PM, Ted Bunch wrote:
> Jeff -you are correct, non-peer-reviewed abstracts are not the last
> word, but the presence of chondrules in Al Haggounia clearly make it an
> enstatite chondrite, not an aubrite. Works for me.
>
> Irving et al. submitted a revised classification to the NOM COM for NWA
> 2828 as we did for NWA 2965 (Al-Haggounia stones), no action was taken
> on either, no balls.
>
> These "re-classifications" are available on the NAU website at:
> http://www4.nau.edu/meteorites/index.html
>
> You have stated in the past that NOM COM approved classifications are
> "not official, so if the NOM COM is an official arm of the Meteoritical
> Society, acting in its behalf, "approval" of a classification should
> also mean that it is official.
>
> I don't want to get into an argument over semantics/definitions, but if
> approved classifications are not "official" and our re-classifications
> of Al-Haggounia specimens NWA 2828 and NWA 2965 are not approved, then
> may be those persons who are interested in Al-Haggounia correctness,
> should consider our re-classifications as "official", by consensus.
>
> Ted
>
> On 6/13/10 6:11 AM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
>> Abstracts NEVER put scientific issues to rest. They are preliminary
>> works which have not been through scientific peer-review.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On 2010-06-12 9:57 PM, Greg Hupe wrote:
>>
>>> Just a little more info to put this to rest and show competent science.
>>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2010/pdf/5378.pdf
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> ====================
>>> Greg Hupe
>>> The Hupe Collection
>>> NaturesVault (eBay)
>>> gmhupe at htn.net
>>> www.LunarRock.com
>>> IMCA 3163
>>> ====================
>>> Click here for my current eBay auctions:
>>> http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZnaturesvault
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>

-- 
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA

Received on Sun 13 Jun 2010 01:31:21 PM PDT