In a recent communication John Rylander asked:
"... do you agree that the burden of proof is on
Petersen? or is it on his critics?"
I would answer emphatically that Petersen has
proved his thesis, in the main, elegantly and
completely. The burden of rebuttal now lies with
his critics. But it should go without saying that
in order to rebut that thesis his critics must
first read and understand it. Assuredly Mr. Morton
has not read Petersen's book, at least to the point
of understanding, as I will now proceed to
demonstrate.
In a recent note entitled "Snails in the Loess"
I responded to a charge by Pim vsn Meurs in these
words:
" In a recent posting in response to something I
wrote, Pim van Meurs chided me for not taking
proper note of data offered by Glenn Morton
concerning the distribution of snails in the loess.
I meant to post a reply, but now I can't find Pim's
article. I may have deleted it inadvertently, so
I'll have to define a new subject for this purpose.
The gist of his posting was that (according to
data cited by Morton) the various varieties of
snails in the loess are distributed (in relation to
rivers, etc.) exactly as one would expect according
to the uniformitarian model. He then challenged me
to explain that fact in the light of Petersen's
theory.
Well, of course, I can't. I would question the
evidence instead. Certainly I do not suggest that
Morton shaded the data (or the interpretation
thereof) in order to make an agreeable point, but
that unseemly practice is not unknown, the pressure
on authors in academia being what it is. A paper
cited by Petersen on Page 141 offers a case in
point. Here Skertchly and Kingsmill describe
certain great limey slabs lying on the loess in
China as "old river gravels". Some of those
conglomerate slabs were hundreds of yards long and
up to 30 yards wide. They were scattered at
various elevations on the hillsides and oriented at
random. Some of them even projected like shelves
from the loess. The above authors, presumably to
curry favor with a thesis committee or a referee,
avoided the obvious and offered these slabs as the
bed of an old river--an implausible interpretation,
in my opinion, but one at least in some measure
agreeable to the Uniformity Principle.
I wonder if either van Meurs or Morton would
care to comment on those "old river gravels".
Morton replied in part as follows:
" And by the way, Janet, I don't believe those
gravels you mention really exist. You are obviously
defending your 'authority' as a scientific outsider,
and your velikovskian colleagues probably put enough
pressure on you so that you are merely saying what
they want you to. You know that they won't publish
your articles in Chronos if you stray from the party
line. If you were to challenge their orthodoxy you
would not be in good standing with them. So whatever
evidence you cite I know that you are citing it
simply so you can go to the Velikovskian club
meetings."
I can understand why Mr. Morton would **wish**
that those slabs did not exist; obviously they
cannot be accommodated by any uniformitarian model,
but of course they pose no problem at all to
Petersen's view of the loess. However Mr. Morton
seems confused about the source of that evidence. I
did not obtain it from any "velikovskian
colleagues"; I got it from Page 141 of Petersen's
book, as I stated clearly above and as Morton would
have known if he had read the book as claimed. In
fact, Petersen gives as the source for his
information Page 243 in the paper:
Skertchly, S.B.J. and T.W. Kingsmill, On the
loess and other superficial deposits of
Shantung (North China), Quart. J. Geol. Soc.
(London), Vol. 51, pp. 238 - 254 (1895)
Assuredly this is not a Velikovskian publication,
and moreover I would urge that Morton's remarks are
utterly irrelevant.
Central to Petersen's thesis are certain
calcareous nodules known as "loess dolls". Prof.
Mastropaolo recently discussed them at length and
pointed out the significant fact that each one has
a void on the inside. It is an irregularly shaped
void which is perfectly consistent with the picture
that the interior of those objects was at one time
muddy while the outside was more nearly dry. Then,
when that internal moisture eventually diffused to
the surface and evaporated a corresponding void
remained behind on the inside. Petersen reproduced
photographs of several such voids in his Plates
32,33 and 34. If Morton had read Petersen's book,
and understood it, as he claims, then he would
surely have seen those pictures and would have
known what those voids look like.
How then can one understand the following
exchange that took place between Mr. Morton and
myself on 9 Sept. under the heading "RE: Petersen's
Book"? Firstly, Morton quoted from the book,
"Aeolian Dust and Dust Deposits" by Kenneth Pye as
follows:
"... Many of the nodules form around plant
roots and contain large internal voids partly
filled by coarse rhombohedral calcite."
To which I replied:
"I am glad to be informed of this reference,
but you might note that Pye did not offer to
explain those voids."
And then Morton answered:
"Are you unaware that when roots rot away they
leave a void?"
Here again is persuasive evidence that Mr.
Morton has not examined Petersen's work. Had he
done so he could not have confused the irregular
voids shown in Plates 32,33 and 34 with the holes
left by rotted roots. It follows that his outspoken
hostility to Petersen's thesis is purely emotional
in nature and has no foundation in reason. I hope
the reader will weigh his words henceforth with
this simple fact in mind.
Janet
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums