Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:01:19 -0600, Tom McDonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:46:12 -0600, Tom McDonald
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:27:24 -0600, Tom McDonald
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Larry Athy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, Nov 28, 2003, 6:23pm, Old Mc posted here and wrote: " The
>>>>>>important bit, the _only_ important bit, is that the linguist's opinion
>>>>>>was that what Larry did wasn't capable of doing what Larry wanted to do.
>>>>>>Period." 
>>>>>>------------
>>>>>>In statistical analysis of problems, the opinions of linguists, archys,
>>>>>>and janitors are rarely of an importance.
>>>>>>      Regards,  Larry Athy, P.E.
>>>>>
>>>>>   One wonders why Larry bothers with posting on an archaeology 
>>>>>ng, then.  One is clear, however, about why he doesn't post on 
>>>>>linguistics ngs.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Additionally, of course, his failure to understand the 
>>>>>abilities and techniques of scientists like archies and 
>>>>>linguists shows his prejudices, and indicates the ability he 
>>>>>has to do research beyond the end of his nose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In all fairness, Larry's comment is not too far off the mark as far
>>>>the statistical analysis of this problem is concerned. Much as I have
>>>>wanted to see one I have not seen one coherent argument of any depth
>>>>used against the statistical methods applied by Larry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens
>>>
>>>     In all fairness to archaeologists and linguists, Larry's 
>>>scattergun claim of their statistical innumeracy needs to be 
>>>pointed out and countered.  Archaeologists use statistics 
>>>routinely, and with ever-increasing sophistication and 
>>>ingenuity.  This has led them to be able to study problems 
>>>that were thought beyond the archaeologist's ken not so long ago.
>> 
>> 
>> I can only repeta:
>> 
>>   "In all fairness, Larry's comment is not too far off the mark as far
>>    the statistical analysis of this problem is concerned. Much as I
>>    have wanted to see one I have not seen one coherent argument
>>    of any depth used against the statistical methods applied by
>> Larry".
>> 
>> Polemics do not alter that fact.
>
>       Why don't you make a coherent argument of some depth about 
>(not for or against) the statistical methods applied by Larry. 
>  I thought that would be part of your review and attempt at 
>replicating his paper.

Hell. I have 40 years of mathematical neglect to make up (with regard
to statistics). I also have the problem that _there_is_not_one_
worthwhile book on Ogham (Macalister, McManus, Brash etc) in any
significant library in New Zealand. I'm working on it but it will take
time.
>
>       Perhaps you can get some straight answers out of Larry. 
>Confusion works in his favor, I think.  Maybe you can cut 
>through that, either in conversation with Larry, or by your 
>own efforts with the material.

Scholarship may work by subjecting a proponent to an inquisition.
Science works by testing the hypothesis. I am trying to work largely
independently of Larry but I expect to need his help in some areas.
>
>> 
>> 
>>>     If Larry has a method that can really work, it would be of 
>>>interest to archaeologists.  However, it must be shown to 
>>>work, and to be applicable to the kind of problem for which 
>>>Larry uses it.  The case for this method is not advanced by 
>>>his disdain for archaeologists, or his disdain for basic 
>>>scientific discourse.
>> 
>> 
>> It would help if any of his critics really knew much about statistics.
>
>       It would help infinitely more if Larry were able to hold a 
>civil conversation about his work.  If he would work with 
>others in a collegial and academically sound way, we would 
>have had closure on all of his work years ago.
>
>       I also think that plenty of folks on the ng know a great deal 
>about statistics.  However, Larry jukes and weaves, avoiding 
>engagment on the key issues of his paper, muddying the 
>statistical (among other) waters; and unfortunately, too 
>often, you let him get away with it.  I don't know if that's 
>your intention; I hope not.  But many of your posts have the 
>effect of moving the focus off lines of questioning that might 
>prove fruitful.
>
>       I'm looking forward to your report on your run at his paper.

Some time in 2004.



Eric Stevens