--On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:26:26 John E. Rylander wrote:>snip> Suppose some engineer somewhere wrote a book claiming in great detail to>depict a mechanical device capable of operating perpetually. Suppose you>look at the book and deem it absurd, and say as much. But suppose several>obviously intelligent but ignorant people read it (ignorant only of the>relevant science, in the innocent, non-abusive sense -- I'm in this category>myself) and are convinced by the seeming rigor and technical sophistication>of his case.> You'd probably be reluctant to "waste" time on an ongoing detailed>discussion of the book, and accusations (by those untrained in the relevant>sciences) that you're brainwashed by the self-serving and obviously>threatened run-of-the-mill engineering community wouldn't go too far in>changing your mind.
I think your analysis of the situation comes closer to the mark than mine. I've been convinced for many years that the uniformitarian reconstruction of antiquity is grievously in error so I was glad to read Petersen's argument carefully from the beginning. Those who are not so convince ahead of time might well be unwilling to give it that kind of attention. Apparently Messrs. Morton and Schimmrich were unwilling to do so. Although I am persuaded that Petersen is fundamentally correct I would certainly like to see a careful and sober assessment of his thesis by someone more expert than I in these matters. The key words here are, of course, "careful" and "sober". Whether any such assessment will ever be forthcoming remains to be seen.
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums