Rhiannon
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 19:58
|
|
Nah Tiompan, you're not the only one, I'm sure by a long shot. You might think me one of the worst offenders of fluffiness (actually I'm extremely rationalist and can't be doing much with untestable / untested theories declared as near-enough-fact). If you've got your hard hat on you might as well stay and take the blows, I'll get your back if you like :)
|
Littlestone
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 20:02
|
|
Yes , speculation is necessary and is acceptable as part of an informed discourse but it is rarely mentioned on the tin when most of the discourse is speculative and the little refutable info is wrong .
True, but not a great deal is ever mentioned on the tin - it's what you do with the contents that matters.
One of the great strengths of forums such as this is that we're free to speculate, express our experiences of places and muse on what they might have meant (without the need for peer approval). An idea or argument will stand or fall here on its own merits, and if we scroll back over various topics discussed on TMA we can see that process in healthy action. Some ideas have fallen by the wayside, while others have now been taken on board by the establishment - often some years since they were first muted on TMA and on other forums.
Of course, we will always get the odd academic swinging in to say we should wait for the 'official' version of things, the book or the television deal etc before 'speculating'. Well, they may wish to wait, those in the vanguard however have better things to do :-)
|
tiompan
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 20:12
|
|
Rhiannon wrote: Nah Tiompan, you're not the only one, I'm sure by a long shot. You might think me one of the worst offenders of fluffiness (actually I'm extremely rationalist and can't be doing much with untestable / untested theories declared as near-enough-fact). If you've got your hard hat on you might as well stay and take the blows, I'll get your back if you like :)
I didn't see you as being fluffy at all Rhiannon .We can all make up out own minds when somebody says that Stonehenge was a computer /hospital /centre of the galaxy etc and it's not worth arguing over but when you get stuff that is stated as fact like a lot of astro/metrology stuff the writers hide behind their white coats not expecting their facts to be checked and so often when they are ,they are found wanting . I just think it's such a waste ,it takes a generation to get over that sort of thinking . Thanks for the cover I'll take me hat off for a minute .
|
Littlestone
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 20:28
|
|
...when you get stuff that is stated as fact like a lot of astro/metrology stuff the writers hide behind their white coats not expecting their facts to be checked and so often when they are ,they are found wanting...
That happens in any sphere of research, as well as in religion, politics and the arts - and white coats, dog collars and robes have always been used to intimidate speculation/free thinking. It's true that a lot of 'astro/metrology stuff' has gone down the pan but then too have those who developed and advocated the use of thalidomide. As I say, speculation will stand or fall on its own merits - what should not happen is that speculation is suppressed (or considered somehow inferior) because it is just speculation.
|
tiompan
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 20:28
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Yes , speculation is necessary and is acceptable as part of an informed discourse but it is rarely mentioned on the tin when most of the discourse is speculative and the little refutable info is wrong .
True, but not a great deal is ever mentioned on the tin - it's what you do with the contents that matters.
One of the great strengths of forums such as this is that we're free to speculate, express our experiences of places and muse on what they might have meant (without the need for peer approval). An idea or argument will stand or fall here on its own merits, and if we scroll back over various topics discussed on TMA we can see that process in healthy action. Some ideas have fallen by the wayside, while others have now been taken on board by the establishment - often some years since they were first muted on TMA and on other forums.
Of course, we will always get the odd academic swinging in to say we should wait for the 'official' version of things, the book or the television deal etc before 'speculating'. Well, they may wish to wait, those in the vanguard however have better things to do :-)
I think we spoke about this quite recently , when it comes to whacky ideas the establishment is the vanguard with the exception of the real nutty stuff .The post processualists thrive on it .Theory and interpretation are necessary when new facts are uncovered and maybe one day these interpretations will be shown to be correct , meanwhile there is a current concensus about what is unknowable that will develop with argument and will confirmed or otherwise with discovery . Just because the establishment pick up on or agree with something that was stated here first doesn't make it any more correct ,although I can't think of a such an example . Now if somebody here had suggested that West kennet Long Barrow was only "operational " for just over a generation prior to that discovery that really would be one to note .
|
Rhiannon
|
Edited Feb 13, 2010, 21:48
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 21:47
|
|
Ah so long as it's informed speculation though, innit, with reasons that can be gathered to support one's choice of speculation. To use your example, thalidomide had been tested out and seemed to work fine on guineapigs, so there was every reason to think it'd be ok with humans, it wasn't a random stab in the dark that it was chosen. Not all speculations have equal standing. But doubtless you're not saying that :) And besides I'm spoiling the leanness of your book thread so I should shut up.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 13, 2010, 22:47
|
|
Ah so long as it's informed speculation though...
'Informed' speculation suggest that the speculation rests on 'information' gleaned from others. There's no doubt value in that but what I had in mind were the leaps of imagination (speculation) that can lead to new (and sustainable) theories of how things may have been, are, or will become :-)
|
Rhiannon
|
Edited Feb 14, 2010, 00:14
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 14, 2010, 00:12
|
Ooh I don't know, in fact it'd be even better if it were 'informed' from one's own first hand researches. I'm kind of thinking about ley lines here, with the mention of John Michell I suppose. Like one could have a revelation / speculate on alignments of sites, but if this was based on Just Some Idea I Had it wouldn't be so convincing as if I'd been out wandering about in the field and taken a few measurements and collected a bit of hard data myself. Also you could use other people's basic data (like the type of artefacts found at a site and where they were found) but interpret those patterns in another way that a mainstream academic might not.
Then you can still have leaps of the imagination, but they're based on more than just something that pops into your head, a bit of supporting evidence. Or is that just me with my science head on.
Ah I don't know. The fairly recent Stonehenge As Water-Related Cure comes to mind. It sounds like fluffy tosh to me, but it might well be true. But it can't ever be Proved because we can't go back and ask anyone. So in a way it's not worth speculating. But in a way you just might as well, it's better than not exercising your brain about the subject at all.
I think I'll go and rest my brain now, it's been a long day :) (All 'you's above are strictly generic as I'm sure you appreciate).
|
tiompan
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 14, 2010, 15:31
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Ah so long as it's informed speculation though...
'Informed' speculation suggest that the speculation rests on 'information' gleaned from others. There's no doubt value in that but what I had in mind were the leaps of imagination (speculation) that can lead to new (and sustainable) theories of how things may have been, are, or will become :-)
We had also mentioned this recently on another thread .Mendeleev and Kekule both "slept on it " and came up with the goods but both were experts in their respective fields .The phenomenologists do something similar in arcaheoplogy ,they do know their stuff then give free rein to their imagination , sadly imo it's no better than the untrained " this must be a sacred site/landscape as that the vibe I get " . Speculation is fine but it keeps us arguing/discussing the subject until something tangible comes along . Apart from " I think we should dig here " I can't think of anything speculative that has outlasted a fashion for terminology that eventually gets superceded like "sacred " "astronomer priests " ,"tombs ", "ancestors " ,"ritual landscape "climate change " we usually find ourselves no further forward in understanding the people or the monuments .The paradigm shifts tend to to be due excavation ,study and technology .
|
moss
|
Re: The Measure of Albion: Robin Heath & John Michell
Feb 14, 2010, 15:47
|
|
tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: Ah so long as it's informed speculation though...
'Informed' speculation suggest that the speculation rests on 'information' gleaned from others. There's no doubt value in that but what I had in mind were the leaps of imagination (speculation) that can lead to new (and sustainable) theories of how things may have been, are, or will become :-)
We had also mentioned this recently on another thread .Mendeleev and Kekule both "slept on it " and came up with the goods but both were experts in their respective fields .The phenomenologists do something similar in arcaheoplogy ,they do know their stuff then give free rein to their imagination , sadly imo it's no better than the untrained " this must be a sacred site/landscape as that the vibe I get " . Speculation is fine but it keeps us arguing/discussing the subject until something tangible comes along . Apart from " I think we should dig here " I can't think of anything speculative that has outlasted a fashion for terminology that eventually gets superceded like "sacred " "astronomer priests " ,"tombs ", "ancestors " ,"ritual landscape "climate change " we usually find ourselves no further forward in understanding the people or the monuments .The paradigm shifts tend to to be due excavation ,study and technology .
I've always been two minds about this, the WAM Wiltshire archaeological magazine) articles, had the excavation, drawings, finds and then at the end a couple of paragraphs dealing with interpretation, simple and to the point.
Then we had the 'flowering' of the archaeologists into the new teachings of the universities, and a whole landscape of speculation was leashed on the unsuspecting ;) apart from the fact that it is expensive to buy all the books - I refuse to buy anything more on Stonehenge till the final verdict is reached on what it is for!
But if we did not have the books of speculation, would'nt our imaginations be stunted?
|
