Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by moloch-hai 1243 days ago
Either new evidence changes the picture, or it doesn't. Objecting to checking is not science.
2 comments

I wanted to know what you were talking about in the first place.

Not whether this runestone find affects our understanding of history.

What does "the picture" mean? For just about every topic there are multiple pictures, depending on one's interest.

I think it's good science for geospatial information scientists to object to requests to check for a flat earth, and for medical scientists to object to using humoral theory in medical diagnostics, so I think your second sentence, when interpreted a blanket statement, is wrong.

Surely Mailhammer, or Vennemann, or you could perform and publish your own checks, so I also don't see how your comment is relevant - who is stopping them from checking?

What new evidence.

The guy's post said it was checked by linguists and found inadequate to support your claim. Not that your claim is wrong, just unsupportable by that checking.

Are you aware of the article your post is attached to?
Yes. Iust can't see the word 'semitic' or 'carthage' there, am I missing something?
It is new evidence. Previous conclusions formed in its absence are obsolete. The new conclusion might be the same, or not, but not without checking first.
What explicitly is the link. What is the new evidence. Please be specific.
It is right there at the top of the window you are looking at right now. They call it TFA around here.