Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

"Eric Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

The CISP site gives as much as is needed to at least get the basics.

> >
> > 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


-- 
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.