|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern not antiquarian |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:25
|
||
|
bladup wrote: I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. I didn't see it like that. Anyhow, don't you claim a degree of expertise yourself?
|
|||
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:34
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: harestonesdown wrote: bladup wrote: rockhopper wrote: My own experience with 'academics' has I'm afraid given me rather a jaundiced view. I can only speak about this country (Eire), but the ones I have met have been aloof, dismissive, and in one or two instances downright obstructive. Based on 10 years experience I have yet to meet one prepared to give 'amateurs' (a term I use through gritted teeth) a fair hearing. It seems that most are interested solely in their own careers and pension prospects, and have an eye firmly on the next tranche of funding for their own projects. This of course is human nature, but it excludes much that is relevant. There are many intelligent people out there who were not able to benefit from higher education, who (and I do not include myself among them) had circumstances been different, could well have gone on to eclipse the careers of those who were more fortunate. Personally I have learnt an enormous amount from all walks of academia, as have we all. But the possesion of an expensive piece of paper from a university does not confer automatic intellectual superiority upon anyone. I regard the guy who fixes my car as an absolute genius, without whom both me and the academics would be well stuck. Not everything in life requires a university degree, and I would list the ability to see and reason, one of the mainstays of archaeology, as one of them. I couldn't agree more!!! Thirded. I can't argue with your own experiences obviously, and it's sad to hear that's what you've encountered. I also agree wholeheartedly with Rockhopper that there are loads of people who, had things been different, could have had equally impressive careers as the more "fortunate". I also agree that just because you have a piece of paper, it doesn't make your opinions more valid or important. But this does seem a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face in some ways. I realise that some archaeologists/academics are tossers, same as some milkmen are tossers and some astronauts are tossers. But that doesn't mean that there isn't loads to learn from professional archaeologists or academics. The piece of paper might not make them intellectually superior (it clesarly doesn't) but it does indicate that they have invested a lot of time and energy into their chosen field. So they might know things that people who haven't spend years of study don't, and we can all benefit from that knowledge, as long we are prepared to learn. Obviously the academics need to be prepared to share their knowledge freely, and I admit that this is sometimes where there is a real problem. It just shouldn't matter- it should be irrelevant. A piece of paper is a piece of paper, i was up on the moor last year near zennor at 2 tumuli [on the map] and i got a feeling that i was at a place where they cut the flesh on dead bodys before they were left out to rot and picked over by birds, then the bones that were left where probably taken to zennor or elsewhere, i asked in my head to be shown if i was right and with that i saw sticking out the peat between the two barrows a little perfect flint axe, as i picked it up something inside me said " yes and that what they used" it must have flown of it's handle when in use as it looks unused and is perfectly polished on the blade as if it was just about to be used, how would the academics explain that- they would still probably label me mad [ but i have the axe and the experience].
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:39
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: wannabe academics Have you considered whether we might all occupy a single spectrum of academics or experts? I think it's wrong to think there are two distinct camps. I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. " Maybe you should read what was said ""You might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not . "" . Note the qualifier "but if your opinion is wrong " . Regardless , believing that one's person's opinion is as good as anyone's else's is just pathetic relativism often heard from those with a bit of a chip on the shoulder . Do you really think that your or my opinion on the import of the discovery of the Higgs boson is as valid as someone who might actually know something about the subject ? Yes you gave me the chip, it was NOT unaddressed, and yes because the hicks boson will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works------- just look back though it..............
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:49
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. I didn't see it like that. Anyhow, don't you claim a degree of expertise yourself? Of course [ tongue firmy in cheek ], though my experiences i have learned lots and you learn a hell of a lot when you build a stone circle [things you would never dream of]. i am no better than an academic person nor him me, i just come from a different angle, which i think is a great thing if someone like me and an academic come to the same conclusion then we're probably on to something.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:49
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: wannabe academics Have you considered whether we might all occupy a single spectrum of academics or experts? I think it's wrong to think there are two distinct camps. I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. " Maybe you should read what was said ""You might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not . "" . Note the qualifier "but if your opinion is wrong " . Regardless , believing that one's person's opinion is as good as anyone's else's is just pathetic relativism often heard from those with a bit of a chip on the shoulder . Do you really think that your or my opinion on the import of the discovery of the Higgs boson is as valid as someone who might actually know something about the subject ? Yes you gave me the chip, it was NOT unaddressed, and yes because the hicks boson will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works------- just look back though it.............. But the comment has shown to be wrong .That's how science works , it is never "right" just continually providing better models of reality . It's only the those who use non falsifiable comments that can't be wrong .No our opinion is worthless compared to those who anything about it .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:55
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: wannabe academics Have you considered whether we might all occupy a single spectrum of academics or experts? I think it's wrong to think there are two distinct camps. I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. " Maybe you should read what was said ""You might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not . "" . Note the qualifier "but if your opinion is wrong " . Regardless , believing that one's person's opinion is as good as anyone's else's is just pathetic relativism often heard from those with a bit of a chip on the shoulder . Do you really think that your or my opinion on the import of the discovery of the Higgs boson is as valid as someone who might actually know something about the subject ? Yes you gave me the chip, it was NOT unaddressed, and yes because the hicks boson will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works------- just look back though it.............. But the comment has shown to be wrong .That's how science works , it is never "right" just continually providing better models of reality . It's only the those who use non falsifiable comments that can't be wrong .No our opinion is worthless compared to those who anything about it . Now we're getting somewhere and i proudly stick to everything i have wrote, i think you are wrong and the the future will prove me right-- i am entitled to my opinion as are you.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:55
|
||
|
bladup wrote: i got a feeling that i was at a place where they cut the flesh on dead bodys before they were left out to rot and picked over by birds, then the bones that were left where probably taken to zennor or elsewhere, i asked in my head to be shown if i was right and with that i saw sticking out the peat between the two barrows a little perfect flint axe, as i picked it up something inside me said " yes and that what they used" it must have flown of it's handle when in use as it looks unused and is perfectly polished on the blade as if it was just about to be used, how would the academics explain that- they would still probably label me mad [ but i have the axe and the experience]. No they wouldn't label you as mad, they'd say (hopefully) you have a right to your perceptions. On the other hand, they'd give your perceptions short shrift in any discussion about what happened at the site. Are you saying they'd be wrong to do so?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 19:58
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: Stonehenge and the recumbents [it's all about the recumbent at them- i've been to enough] are not true stone circles and the recumbents do seem to have had a fire at the start [probably to clear the ground]. It really does seem to be different where you are in the country which suggests different things were going on all over, therefore it was probably very regional as to what went on , i can almost hear the dancing feet down here in cornwall. I think the name recumbent stone circles tells us what type of monument it is . Recumbents also have burials associated with them , as well as ring cairns . Stone circles in the south west had charcoal deposits e.g. at Ferworthy the entire inner space was covered in charcoal, Brisworthy and the Grey Wethers also had charcoal deposits , Boskednan had a cist .Hurlers northern circle was paved with granite ,Duloe had an urn with a cremation . "Swept clean " and don't like excavating them "quotes ? Fires before the circle was put up [probably just to clear the ground ready for the build] boskednan's cist/cairn would probably have been put there a 1000 years after the circle stones [ we'll have to wait for it to be dated to prove one of us right] the people who built the cairn may have had no idea what the circle was for by that point, just that it was built by the ancestors, and the paving i'm sure was only added when the last circle was put up [so a long time after there was a stone circle there, there may also be evidence of the stone's been worked which would also be late in the scheme of things, and duloe's a funny old circle so i'll have a guess and say the urn is contemporary with the circle- as it could be the most flashy burial in the country, it's a very unusual place and unlike anything else around here. We have to rely on excavation and RC dating to find the actual sequence , guesswork and estimations even from the experienced expert can be shown to be wrong . Getting a date for the Boskednan cist does not date the circle . Stone circles have been erected at sites that had seen earlier activity that the builders would have been aware of , and that activity may well have been the reason for choosing to build the monument at the site in the first place . Stone circles built within clearly visible earlier monuments are obvious examples e.g. Arbor Low , Stonehenge , Broomend of Crichie (where burials were also found in the stone sockets ) , Newgrange , Moncrieffe ,Clava (where the sequence shows that the stone circles were erected soon after the ring cairns were built ) . Neolithic pottery was found in a shallow scoop underneath the recumbent and in the socket of a fallen orthostats as well as other contexts at Daviot . Excavations from the 1990's showed that at Tomnaverie the old land surface was covered with burnt soil , comminuted charcoal and fragments of human bone , this was covered by a cairn and platform in which monoliths were stood , under the recumbent charcoal produced a date of 2498-2432 BC. Although there were further use of the site in the Late Bronze Age and 16&17th C ad the last structure was the RSC with the recumbent being last of that . The sequence and date was not what was generally expected and the findings were repeated at Cothiemur Wood where the the ring cairn was seen as the first structure followed by the stone circle similar results were discovered at Aikey Brae . It would only take one example to refute “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . And clearly the effort put in and interest shown by the archaeologists who chose to excavate these places including the findings of earlier and contemporaneous material refutes “thats why archeologists don't like them] and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, “ No silly you would have to date the circle as well [boskednan] - the recumbents are a class of their own as i think the stone circle is always secondry to the recumbent itself, like the stone circles are secondry to the clava cairns [sometimes they don't even have the circle do they?]. In other places the stone circle [the "true" ones] was all important. Of couse archeologists interested in prehistory would like them [as we would- it's the same], the average archeologist less so - as there's not going to be much there [oh no i said it]. Your'e the one who said "boskednan's cist/cairn would probably have been put there a 1000 years after the circle stones [ we'll have to wait for it to be dated to prove one of us right] " i.e. prejudging the date of the circle from the date of cist . Hence "Getting a date for the Boskednan cist does not date the circle . " You might think /believe /imagine the stone circle to be secondary to the recumbent or the stone circle to be secondary to the ring cairns at Clava ( all the ring cairns at Clava have stone circles around them , some Clava cairns i.e. those named after the Clava site don't necessarily ) but that does nothing to change what we know from excavation which among many other suggestions refutes your “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . I see that "Stone circles have nothing left in them thats why archeologists don't like them] “ has been moderated to “ Of couse archeologists interested in prehistory would like them “ where the “them “ are stone circles .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 20:10
|
||
|
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: wannabe academics Have you considered whether we might all occupy a single spectrum of academics or experts? I think it's wrong to think there are two distinct camps. I think i have just experienced it!! i was told my opinion wasn't worth as much as somebody else [ who clearly feels is an expert himself ]. " Maybe you should read what was said ""You might like to think your opinion might be as valid as anyone else's , but if your opinion is wrong , in this case the continually unaddressed "Stone circles have nothing left in them " it is not . "" . Note the qualifier "but if your opinion is wrong " . Regardless , believing that one's person's opinion is as good as anyone's else's is just pathetic relativism often heard from those with a bit of a chip on the shoulder . Do you really think that your or my opinion on the import of the discovery of the Higgs boson is as valid as someone who might actually know something about the subject ? Yes you gave me the chip, it was NOT unaddressed, and yes because the hicks boson will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works------- just look back though it.............. But the comment has shown to be wrong .That's how science works , it is never "right" just continually providing better models of reality . It's only the those who use non falsifiable comments that can't be wrong .No our opinion is worthless compared to those who anything about it . Now we're getting somewhere and i proudly stick to everything i have wrote, i think you are wrong and the the future will prove me right-- i am entitled to my opinion as are you. We might be entitled to an opinion it doesn't mean it should be necessarily meaningful or worth considering . Where was I wrong ? According to you "....will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works " and "the future will prove me right " therefore with that reasoning what you were proved right about will probably be proved bollocks 500 years later .
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Aug 05, 2012, 20:11
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: i got a feeling that i was at a place where they cut the flesh on dead bodys before they were left out to rot and picked over by birds, then the bones that were left where probably taken to zennor or elsewhere, i asked in my head to be shown if i was right and with that i saw sticking out the peat between the two barrows a little perfect flint axe, as i picked it up something inside me said " yes and that what they used" it must have flown of it's handle when in use as it looks unused and is perfectly polished on the blade as if it was just about to be used, how would the academics explain that- they would still probably label me mad [ but i have the axe and the experience]. No they wouldn't label you as mad, they'd say (hopefully) you have a right to your perceptions. On the other hand, they'd give your perceptions short shrift in any discussion about what happened at the site. Are you saying they'd be wrong to do so? Of course the place isn't a barrow it's a mortuary enclosure, [if that is what you meant?], see it's not a one off i have loads of similar stories[ finding worked flint to prove people lived there - just from a feeling- they will show you, if you ask - only if they like you!!!], i'm not mad just a normal[ish] family guy, other things are making me know stuff, i do not chose what i learn, i find it very hard to read books [ i don't]- there is much better [and more fun] ways to learn, people seemed to learn enough before books even existed, didn't they?? in fact the things learnt before books are probably the only real truths.
|
| Pages: 28 – [ Previous | 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
