|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 19:48
|
||
Thanks for letting me know your opinion Nigel. I doubt that we'll ever find any common ground on this. It's been a useful conversation. Thanks!
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Mar 01, 2017, 12:59
|
||
|
Well this - 'A303 Stonehenge feedback from a consortium of Stonehenge experts 27 February 2017 ', spells out from a very eminent group of archaelogists how they feel...... http://www.sarsen.org/2017/03/a303-stonehenge-feedback-from.html
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 02, 2017, 20:05
|
||
|
moss wrote: Well this - 'A303 Stonehenge feedback from a consortium of Stonehenge experts - spells out from a very eminent group of archaelogists how they feel...... The archaeo's response is encouraging. I took a better look at the consultation documents to see if there is any way that their position statement could open the door. The authors of the consultation have been very thorough in developing the documents: But overall, there may be a method of opening a door to change. Unfortunately, the work that the archaeos have done probably isn't enough by itself. Here's the author's (somewhat buried away) note saying which set of financial rules will be used to provide the final argument, and also provide an opportunity for the counter-arguments against, any given application: "4.3.7 When considering an application for development consent, the Secretary of State will consider its benefits including for economic growth, job creation, and environmental improvement. This will be considered against adverse impacts of the scheme including long-term cumulative impacts. Such applications are required to be supported by a business case prepared in accordance with Treasury Green Book principles." Out of interest, the Green Book is the basis of assessment of policy change and was used by the likes of Stern. This forum is hostile to the idea that archaeology may have value that can be quantified, so it would be a waste of everyone's time to discuss it here. However, I'll put a bit more about it (and what else happened in the consultation using this sort of argument) on the Megalithic Portal.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 02, 2017, 23:07
|
||
|
" This forum is hostile to the idea that archaeology may have value that can be quantified, " Is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what has been said . What was pointed out to you was : 1)Archaeologists are not reluctant to tackle why archaeological remains have value to humanity. .Contrary to your contention that they were . e.g. in "A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. " You also failed to provide any examples where they had been asked the question and were reluctant to answer . 2) The most important values to people are cultural and they cannot be quantified , contrary to your comment " Anything that has value can be quantified using the definitions and methods described in documents such as Stern. " You failed to provide any method where Stern or anyone could actually do this . Further the value attributed to the WHS by UNESCO , is centred on cultural values which ,by their nature , cannot be quantified and no attempt was made to do the impossible .
|
|||
|
moss 2897 posts |
Mar 03, 2017, 06:06
|
||
|
Not given to arguments ;) so I shall upload another interesting article on how the archaeologists are percieved... http://thepipeline.info/blog/2017/03/02/expert-submission-poses-stonehenge-dilemma-for-historic-england-english-heritage-and-national-trust/ Blackmail by the government? That should not come as a surprise of course. "Former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne changed Historic England’s mission from that of being primarily a conservation body and the Government’s arms length technical and legal advisor as guardian of England’s heritage, to one of supporting explicitly what the Government defines in the National Planning Policy Framework as “sustainable development”. If the Government is determined eventually to force through the short tunnel option on the basis that it represents such a sustainable solution to a national infrastructure issue, the archaeologists at Historic England could find themselves forced to defend, support, and even promote, a solution which the rest of the archaeological and heritage world views as utterly unacceptable, possibly because the senior management of the body might fear being further sidelined and starved of resources by a vengeful Whitehall and Downing Street."
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Mar 03, 2017, 06:56
Mar 03, 2017, 06:12
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: the Secretary of State will consider its benefits including for economic growth, job creation, and environmental improvement. Jon, you seem to be confusing political platitudes with a genuine Government capacity to quantify cultural value. "Unique" and "beyond measure" and "irreplaceable" are much used words that show it CAN'T. If the tunnel goes ahead it will be because the Government wills it, not because they've applied a meaningful measure to the cultural loss.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 03, 2017, 08:12
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Jon, you seem to be confusing political platitudes with a genuine Government capacity to quantify cultural value. "Unique" and "beyond measure" and "irreplaceable" are much used words that show it CAN'T. If the tunnel goes ahead it will be because the Government wills it, not because they've applied a meaningful measure to the cultural loss. "Unique" and "beyond measure" and "irreplaceable" are words used by every lobby group Nigel. From the point of view of people outside the special interest group, and probably government, it's up to the lobby group to make the case for what they believe to be true. If they don't make any effort to prove the case, the likelihood is that they don't have a case. It's been nice having this chat Nigel
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 03, 2017, 08:13
|
||
I love your use of logical fallacies and it's much appreciated that you don't use ad hominem. It's been great having this sort of chat again George.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 03, 2017, 08:37
|
||
|
I think you mean highlighting logical fallacies rather than using them Jon . I agree , always good to have a discussion/disagreement that is about the subject and not the discussants .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 03, 2017, 08:52
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: "Unique" and "beyond measure" and "irreplaceable" are words used by every lobby group Nigel.[/quote] Well yes, mia culpa, often! And yes, "development" takes a different view so there's a struggle (with ground rules laid out recently by the Government that favour the latter. I don't mind them winning sometimes - the country can't be kept as a museum - but I'd make two point: a. The evaluation isn't scientific, despite you feeling it ever can be and b. If this particular case ends with the roads lobby winning then it's as bad as it gets and everything is up for grabs. Ultimately it's a turf war Jon. 21 top archaeos say don't do it, so you can't say the effort isn't being made, and if they lose they won't deserve to.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
