On 2012-09-14 12:24, juamei wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-09-08 19:48, tiompan wrote: Depends on the hardness of your science innit . Physicists probably see geologists in much the same light as you do archaeologists and mathematicians being the queens are simply unassailable but tend to be less efficient chefs ,vicars , and non techno archaeos . George

I'd be remiss to not highlight this xkcd strip after that post

http://xkcd.com/435/

On 2012-09-08 19:48, tiompan wrote:
Depends on the hardness of your science innit .
Physicists probably see geologists in much the same light as you do archaeologists and mathematicians being the queens are simply unassailable but tend to be less efficient chefs ,vicars , and non techno archaeos .

George

On 2012-09-13 19:05, aknifethatfellfromthesky wrote:
geology is a science that uses physics, chemistry and maths to describe the universe. a physicist wouldn't regard a geologist as anything other than a scientist.

regards. dean

On 2012-09-12 10:27, Dragonsinger wrote:
Hi George

Last paragraph of my second post where I said:

Quote:

Now before I get inundated with rebuttals from archaeologists who do not think like this let me say that there are currently, and have been in the past, many who have sought the truth and many who want the correct interpretation. Watch the video to see who they WERE and where they are now. Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.

You quoted the portion in italics and asked have I seen any indication that this was the case on this site. It was not aimed at any particular individual hence my reply.
Hope this makes it clear.

Regards
Jim

Now before I get inundated with rebuttals from archaeologists who do not think like this let me say that there are currently, and have been in the past, many who have sought the truth and many who want the correct interpretation. Watch the video to see who they WERE and where they are now.
Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.

On 2012-09-11 10:46, Dragonsinger wrote:

Quote:

Jim , have you seen any comments here that suggest otherwise ?

NO!
But the section you have quoted is not meant to imply that this is indicative of the vast majority of subscribers to this site. Or, indeed, that it is a bad thing. By it's nature archaeology must remain a dicipline of interpretationand revision of those interpretations. It is the last bit thar seems to wear away as the individual archaeologist gets further and further up career the path or in the accepted heirarchy. Also, it does not inevitably happen to every archaeologist.
So if I have offended you I apologise.

Also this tendancy to a belief of infalibility (a God complex?) is not confined to archaeology or even academia, polititians are good examples. No I will not give speciffic examples everyone will have their own pet nominee.

However this detracts from the intent of my original post which was to say "Look guys I do not have an answer to this or any other eratta." but can we start some serious investigaion into them? All we are doing if we ignore them is continue to build a database which is flawed and narrowed by ommision.
A serious problem is that most, if not all, of the current eratta are not in situ or available for study. We believe the "Leakys" dates and finds so why not expand the search for verification and understanding. OH yes, and please, please, please, debunk the fakes.

Jim

[ This message was edited by: Dragonsinger on 2012-09-11 10:50 ]