As far as i'm concerned, this has just been a lively discussion (at least I hope so) and I'm glad it was brought up. However, if I've offended anyone, please accept my feeble (but still sincere) apologies. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Tenney [mailto:retenney@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:12 PM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting? It seems I started this firestorm, and I suppose I need to clarify myself a bit (and risk fanning the flames in the process, sorry!). I have heard VonDel speak on archeoastronomy, and I thought his presentation was very interesting. But I found Dr. Platt's presentation rather different. Perhaps I'm being unfair and extra sensitive, being LDS in a community that too often takes being part of the predominant religious body for granted, frequently assuming that everyone thinks and feels the same way you do (that's another discussion for another day and another group). I've seen more than my share of enthusiastic LDS members manipulate data to "prove" this or that, only to fade away later under proper scrutiny, the passage of time, or by scientific discovery. This "God of the Gaps" phenomena is well understood by scientists, and it makes for very bad PR (not to mention shaky "doctrine") when it is so widely (and unwisely) practiced by LDS and other well-meaning Christians. Look at the "Foundation for Creation Research" group in Southern California for a good example of what I'm talking about here -- so-called reputable scientists offering "proof" that the earth is truly only 6,000 years old, etc. Anytime you attempt to SELECTIVELY interpret data to support some pre-conceived religious belief (while ignoring vast amounts of data to the contrary) is flat out bad science, any way you look at it. My wife enjoys reading me the daily horoscope, especially when it seems to apply (as it surprisingly often does), in part to get me riled, as she knows how I feel about the "black arts" :o) I have another friend that is fascinated by numerology. I've heard way too many wacko's (or clever mathematicians) play with numbers and numbering schemes to be dubious at best about the kind of associations Dr. Platt was making with the numbers 13 and 20 with celestial observations, especially when he frequently finished a sentence with "give or take one or two percent". Science isn't like tossing horseshoes, where being close counts, especially when you are trying to prove a theory, and are stretching the data to fit the hypothesis. I would be willing to bet money that a clever person could pick almost any number out of a hat and find some kind of curious and amazing coincidental relevance to the real or mythological world. Does the number 13 have special relevance to the orbital motions of Venus? Maybe. My guess is that the numbers 10, 11, and 12 do too in some fashion. So what? Did the mesoamericans understand with any degree of precision the precession of the equinox? I find that very difficult to believe. But again, if you play the numbers game just right, you can probably manipulate 13 into a relevant fit somewhere in there, which it felt like what he was doing (or at least inferring). Is there some historical correlation between Jesus Christ and Quetzalcoatl? Perhaps. I could probably also make a compelling correlation between Pres. Bush and Adolf Hitler! In fact, I can show you a website that, using numerology, "proves" that George W. is the anti-Christ! My point being that, what does any of this have to do with the science of astronomy? Maybe I'm judging too much on too little background information, and I'm the ignorant one here. Sorry, I just had too many little red flags keep popping up during his presentation to let me feel otherwise. Do I believe in God? Hey, I'm right there with the Psalmist: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19). My love of Astronomy has deep roots in my faith. But like I said earlier, this presentation has more relevance to an LDS study group than a non-denominational astronomy club, in my opinion. While a presentation on deep-sea thermal vents and the unusual life forms discovered there might also be a fascinating topic for many in the club (it would for me!), it is better suited for a marine biology club (unless the speaker were to put it in the context of how possible life might exist under the frozen water crust of Europa; hmmm, guess I should have picked a different example!). Another aspect of his talk that I was uncomfortable with was the hard historical dates that he claims proof for, especially when so many assumptions were built into his conclusions -- we all know what happens when we ASSume, and the good Doctor should know better. For example, competent scholars still disagree as to the exact year Christ was born; 0 a.d. is, as far as I know, still in hot dispute. I could go on... Anyway, 2 more cents, FWIW. -Rich --- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:

VonDel last spoke at SLAs about 10 years ago. He was not well-received by most, probably for many of the same reasons you have cited. I, however, enjoyed the presentation.

This has been a stimulating discussion, anyway. Sorry, I should have clarified that by "sports" I meant spectator events, not participation for fun. The only spectator sport I enjoy is fencing, and the sports I participate in are all outdoor recreation oriented.

-----Original Message----- From: Chuck Hards [mailto:chuckhards@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:09 PM To: Astronomy in Utah Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] SLAS meeting?

--- Kim Hyatt <khyatt@smithlayton.com> wrote:

...

Chuck, it seems to me that to be consistent, one would have to take the same kind of position on any study of the past. I don't know if that is your view - if so, forgive me but it seems more than a little narrow-minded.

I don't see a refusal to consider myth, poor "artwork" and superstition being on-par with historical study, to be inconsistent. It WOULD be inconsistent to lump faith and unsubstantiated beliefs with any kind of science.

I can appreciate your view Kim, it's just not the optimal view, from where I'm standing. You have a thirst for all knowledge, regardless of tangent, and that is infinitely prefferable to ignorance.

I'm not writing out of a gut feel. I have studied this field quite a bit, read a lot of books on many aspects of it, gone to field-school, visited sites, and participated in "digs". Any ties between modern astronomy and archeoastronomy are strictly semantic.

Has SLAS asked Von del Chamberlain to speak? He's one of the country's foremost authorities on this subject, and right in our own backyard, last time I checked.

...

I feel about sports the way you do about archaeoastronomy. I find NO merit in sports, "professional" or otherwise.

Well we sort-of agree here. I find no merit in professional "spectator" sports. Sports for fun and excercise, that is, participation sport, has quite a bit of merit. Those who participate in sports, on average, tend to live longer, healthier lives than those who don't.

C.

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy

_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com

http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy