RE: Janet Miller's Peterson site

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:08:17 -0700

Janet wrote: << I have already agreed to post a link to Mr. Morton's rebuttal, but I would like to have it
dated after my page was posted. You can probably see the reason why. After I have made that link I intend to point out that Petersen's central theorem can be reduced to four steps of reasoning, and to
rebut it one has to show that at least one of those steps is faulty. Then I will ask the reader to try
to find where Morton has done that. If Mr. Morton wants to continue to evade the issue by repeating
that diarrhea of irrelevancies let him do so with his eyes open.>>

How interesting she sounds like Joseph, refering to data she cannot refute as diarrhea.

But Janet did make the following challenge:

"It should be clear that unless Petersen's theorem can be rebutted, or some more satisfactory interpretation of the loess can be given (either of which options I consider fairly unlikely) then it follows that our prevailing view of nature is very much in error."

This is exactly what Morton did.

So of course Janet is somewhat upset.