Remember how I’ve been discussing the hallmarks of conspiracy culture? Well, according to Michael Barkun’s Culture of Conspiracy (2006), one of the most important markers of what separates a conspiracy theorist from your run of the mill zealous advocate of an unusual idea is the simultaneous rejection of mainstream academia while creating methods for appropriating its prestige and approval. The zealous advocate pushes his (and it’s almost always his) ideas through traditional channels and respects the foundations of scholarship (even if he is blind to his idea’s weaknesses), but the conspiracy theorist rejects the traditional channels and demands that his ideas be exempt from the types of review and scrutiny given to all others. Typically, this is due to a deep distrust of academia or the belief that there is a system-wide conspiracy designed to suppress the truth that the conspiracy theorist is somehow uniquely poised to reveal, if only the guardians of orthodoxy would let him. This is a rather long way of saying that on his blog yesterday Scott Wolter has decided to expound on his beliefs about peer review, which he sees as riven with “territoriality, competition for funding, runaway egos, intimidation, threats of retribution, favoritism, and ordinary personal pique.” I will let the irony speak for itself. Most of Wolter’s blog post is devoted to complaints against Richard Nielsen, his onetime research partner, and it is not my place to involve myself in their interpersonal recriminations. (Disclosure: I have exchanged emails with Nielsen and discussed the Kensington Rune Stone with him even though I do not agree with all of his views.) Wolter also complains about Wikipedia for being overrun with skeptics. At the beginning and end, however, he briefly addresses his putative subject, academic peer review, which he does not seem to fully understand. According to Wolter, peer review is considered a sacrament of academia, a magical process whereby the bread and wine of research are converted through priestly blessing into the body and blood of Truth. That’s not me exaggerating Wolter’s ignorance of what “peer review” means. It’s what he honestly believes: If this review process is so perfect, then why has it not been able to accurately answer the question of the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone, Bat Creek Stone, Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Newport Tower, and Tucson Lead Artifacts? The fact is academic peer review and publishing process has failed miserably. Further, defenders of the “faith” refuse to look inward and take a critical look of their sacred process to try and figure out what went wrong. Instead, they turn a blind eye to obvious failures, dig their heels in and attack those who dare to question. How does one even begin to address such ignorance? Peer review doesn’t determine “truth”; it is designed to evaluate whether a researcher has followed proper academic protocols (and sufficiently described them) and therefore whether an article is worthy of publication. Publication does not establish a claim as true; indeed, you can and do find peer-reviewed articles, sometimes in the very same issues of academic journals, that take wildly opposing views on the same subject—yet they have all passed peer review. Consider the “Jesus’ Wife” papyrus flap ongoing right now; articles both for and against its authenticity can be found in the current Harvard Theological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. Yet if Wolter were right, this simply should not be since the fragment contradicts his straw man version of academic dogma, and the differing opinions “dare to question.” All of the subjects Wolter mentioned above have been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, some many times over. These articles have presented compelling evidence for why each of these “mysterious” objects, artifacts, and buildings are not what Scott Wolter claims them to be. His problem seems to be that he doesn’t like the answers scholars come up with and therefore concludes that peer review is suppressing alternative views. He therefore again reiterates his belief that his work has been “peer-reviewed” in a different way because he is a professional geologist. He claims that as a professional his work receives review from fellow geologists, but he provides no evidence of which peers have endorsed his views on Templar conspiracies, where his findings on specific artifacts have been published, etc. Nor does he explain how geologists reviewing his work on concrete, or even the age of rocks, speaks in any way toward his interpretation of said rocks to support a world-historical conspiracy involving thousands of years of suppressed truth about the hidden line of goddess worshipers who run the world in secret; even if he is right on all the geology, this does not imply that his interpretations of history are necessarily correct, or even coherent. He purposely conflates his geology (which has its own problems) with his grand conspiracy theory as though they were one and the same. It’s akin to asking a botanist to explain the Dutch tulip mania of 1637; yes, it involves flowers, but classifying the bulbs will only take you so far. I’m really tired of listening to “academic” bloggers and Amazon power-trippers using arrogant posturing and name-calling trying to claim sovereignty over scientific method and the peer review process. Instead, we would all appreciate it if these people would stop trying to dictate what they think is proper scientific method and start practicing it. If I may extend Wolter’s earlier hierophantic metaphor a bit, thus is the hoc est enim corpus meum of the priests transformed into the hocus pocus of the wizard standing before the cathedral doors, proclaiming that his mystery is the real way and the truth. Thus does Wolter declare ex cathedra that opposition to his conclusions is little more than “faith” (“If you don’t ‘believe’ they are genuine, then be happy in your ‘faith’…”) while he is the true hierophant of knowledge, possessor of the one true peer review, and the practitioner of the purest science. He speaks rather like Martin Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the cathedral door, proclaiming a reformation, except that Martin Luther had first been in the Church before he condemned it and knew whereof he spoke.
158 Comments
Mandalore
4/13/2014 09:13:53 am
Academia is misunderstood generally in America today. How peer review works, the reason for tenure, processes of research, work loads, promotion, reasons for conferences/collaboration, processes of publication (articles and books), etc. Misconceptions are only enhanced by the anti-intellectualism that is found among many people. It's both disconcerting and sad.
Reply
Graham
4/13/2014 02:59:54 pm
There is a good primer on peer review (at least as it applies to journal publication and NASA grants) on the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast:
Reply
4/14/2014 09:23:28 am
I actually do a lot of peer reviewing for both economic and other publications and honestly I quite often disagree with the findings of the articles. When I disagree I put it in my notes to the authors (these can get quite snarky as those of us who publish know) but i would never base my recommendation to accept or not on the results of the study.
Dave Lewis
4/14/2014 09:43:51 am
Thanks for posting the explanation of peer review!
Titus pullo
4/14/2014 12:17:26 pm
John,
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 02:43:31 pm
And sometimes articles are submitted the are simply flat-out deliberately BOGUS, yet are accepted for publication …
Enon
4/15/2014 12:33:37 am
I usually skip right past anything written by the Revolting Phil, but somehow this bit about Sokal caught my eye. In his typical fashion, Phil is again bringing up something that has very little, if anything, to do with the argument in an attempt to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/15/2014 11:32:26 am
Sokal is NOT the sole investigator of the problem …
Only Me
4/15/2014 11:54:53 am
Examples of these "recent instances", please. Otherwise, what you say is more anecdotal smoke and mirrors.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/15/2014 02:22:21 pm
Do your own homework, Kitten ...
Only Me
4/15/2014 02:50:13 pm
You made the claim, sweetheart, so either prove it or stop wasting blog space.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/15/2014 03:24:09 pm
"Only Me" --
Only Me
4/15/2014 03:54:42 pm
Thank you. Now, was that so hard? I've asked you to do this very thing before (twice during our Clovis discussion), but since you didn't reply, I thought I'd try again.
Walt
4/13/2014 10:11:54 am
I don't disagree with his opinion of academia as it relates to egos and the politics of getting projects funded, but that's just them doing what it takes to get by in today's world. That doesn't mean they lack the professional ethics required to consider alternate ideas when presented with evidence. I'm cynical enough to question their motives, but not their ethics.
Reply
Heidi
4/13/2014 06:42:20 pm
I will agree with you there Walt, academia is a business like any other and education at any level is subject to witch hunts.
Reply
4/13/2014 07:40:40 pm
Witch hunts & conspiracy of silence to prevent what?,the general public to acknowledge the Knights Templar secret journey to America,& secret goddess worshiping ?.This is ridiculous,you don't have a clue about peer reviewing.How many academics do you personally know?.Have you ever been through academic peer reviewing process?.
Titus pullo
4/14/2014 12:23:10 pm
Tara, 4/14/2014 07:05:38 pm
@Titus
Varika
4/15/2014 11:38:17 am
Tara, neither Heidi nor Walt said that PEER REVIEW was a witch hunt, only that academia is as subject to the phenomenon as anywhere else. It is a statement that is not untrue, though from what I have seen, it seldom if ever takes the form of using peer review. Usually, the witch hunts take the form of threats to revoke funding if certain projects or research is pursued. They also tend to be limited in location to a single university or laboratory.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 10:50:43 am
For sure, anyone who has been an active participant in ANY human institution --
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 11:04:51 am
But, yes … WITHIN "the academy" there indeed are not uncommonly ongoing "turf battles" and even ideological tussles …
Reply
4/13/2014 11:19:57 am
And remind us which one was able to wield peer review to suppress the ideas of the other...
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 11:25:16 am
Prof. Dr. Gould WANTED to suppress Wilson's work … but he was unable to do so … He thought that Wilson's "sociobiology" was ideologically DANGEROUS, in that he feared that it COULD be misused by "Nazi" (!!!) folks for ugly racialist purposes ...
Matt Mc
4/13/2014 01:59:25 pm
So two academics disagreed in a what seems to be a distasteful way but nothing was suppressed. So how does this demonstrate that peer reviews are flawed?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 05:00:26 pm
I closely followed the *dust*up* between Gould and Wilson … Gould's "take" on ("peer review" of) Wilson's work WAS flawed …
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 01:12:22 am
Again how does you story relate to how and why Wolter misunderstands what a peer review is and his unwillingness to pursue one. I personally think that if his geology is correct in dating the stones a peer review will help bring more attention and research to his claims.
Harry
4/14/2014 01:58:43 am
Phil,
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 04:51:54 am
Gould not only rejected and roundly criticized Wilson's "sociobiology," he went on to denounce it as ideologically DANGEROUS, as it could be used for evil purposes … He not only argued against Wilson's work, but denounced him for having published it ...
Thinking of Jung + Freud, i am... (j.a.d)
4/14/2014 05:33:09 am
We all saw how the late 1800s corrupted Charles Darwin's ideas...
Harry
4/14/2014 06:29:57 am
Phil,
Titus pullo
4/14/2014 12:26:32 pm
I lost a lot of respect for Gould when he left his area and started to pontificate on economics. He never quite got the spontaneous order concept of human actions.
Reply
From Jason: "All of the subjects Wolter mentioned above have been the subject of peer-reviewed articles, some many times over. These articles have presented compelling evidence for why each of these “mysterious” objects, artifacts, and buildings are not what Scott Wolter claims them to be. His problem seems to be that he doesn’t like the answers scholars come up with and therefore concludes that peer review is suppressing alternative views."
Reply
Mandalore
4/13/2014 11:44:37 am
You are wrong about what you think peer review is. It is not an evaluation of the idea, but the evidence and argument that support it. Ideas that lack exhaustive evidence that is structured into a logical and coherent argument will not be approved in scholarly journals. Contradictory and innovative ideas are published all the time. Peer review is the process, not evaluation. You are seeing conspiracies where none exist.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
4/14/2014 06:33:56 am
Mandalore, I just said, above that I do not see a conspiracy. Here: "I must agree with Wolter that there is an inherent problem with the system. I guess maybe it comes across to him as a conspiracy, while I look at it as a jumble of misinformed people trying to make sense of what is obvious--at least in the case of the KRS."
Mandalore
4/14/2014 07:19:41 am
Why is it that you feel the need to make personal insults to people who offer you none? I have never once said anything about you, but you have repeatedly felt the need to attack me on a personal level. I am unable to decide if it is because you cannot make a sustained argument when even slightly questioned or because you can hide behind the internet.
Okay, Mandalore, yes indeed, we have come to the subject of your rather purposeful insults to me, which you see as a one-sided insult to you. In essence, you manage to show up to be disagreeable to my comments, which I guess you don't see as insulting. You like to show up to say, "Gunn, you're wrong." When you manage to do this more than once, it becomes in my mind an annoying habit. For instance, I said Gunn see's no conspiracy, then you come aboard to say Gunn DOES see a conspiracy. You see the problem?
Walt
4/13/2014 11:57:00 am
The biggest problem with his work on the KRS is it goes beyond his profession. He's a professional geologist, but he taught himself about runes and runestones. That makes him an amateur on runestone land claims. Amateurs, who I guess fall into the "zealous advocate" category Jason referenced, can also use peer review, even if not in a journal. It involves respecting those in the field and carefully considering critiques of your work. Wolter can't seem to separate his professional work from his amateur work. If the geology says the KRS was created in the 14th century, but academics say it's a 19th century hoax, that's interesting enough! His paper on the subject does stop there, but his TV show, books, and radio appearances mix in his amateur opinion on the subject. He should focus on getting geologists to concur with his findings on the age of the KRS, then let the discussion about what it means follow.
Reply
JJ
4/13/2014 11:49:48 am
interested on your paragraph where you stepped, then side stepped on your communications with Nielsen. as a reader of your blog, there were times when your writing seemed to reflect this. How much of Nielsen's opinion on Wolter 'worked for you'?
Reply
4/13/2014 12:05:17 pm
I try very hard to minimize my contact with people who have strong opinions on subjects before I've formed my own views. I only spoke with Nielsen a couple of times, and this was at his request after I had already begun publishing my reviews of America Unearthed. Frankly, their interpersonal disputes are none of my business and aren't relevant to evaluating their respective ideas except insofar as it colors their views.
Reply
JJ
4/13/2014 01:30:29 pm
yes, their dispute is not helpful to any that enter into it. Interesting that Nielsen contacted you after hearing/seeing/reading your reviews..
KRS RUBBISH
4/13/2014 12:19:32 pm
THE KRS IS AN OBVIOUS FAKE
Reply
Just Sayin"
4/13/2014 01:49:29 pm
Science and the scientific process is asking a question(s) and then attempting to answer that question(s) through research, experimentation, and the collection of data and facts. Negative data is just as important to the scientific process as positive data.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 03:25:29 pm
Yes … Ironically, the "de-bunking" and "skeptical" mind set ISN'T "scientific" as it BEGINS with a prejudicial view ...
Reply
Matt Mc
4/13/2014 03:32:31 pm
Again how does this related to Peer Review?
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 03:34:59 pm
Exactly my point ...
Matt Mc
4/13/2014 03:48:03 pm
so your point is that Wolter cannot distinguish between Peer review and skeptics and debunkers.
Just Sayin'
4/13/2014 03:49:38 pm
"Again how does this related to Peer Review?"
Matt Mc
4/13/2014 03:55:57 pm
I understand what Peer Review is, I did not understand how Revs statement reflected on the subject at hand, no one mentioned Skeptics and Debunkers. So I wanted to understand what he was getting at beyond making a childish jab.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 04:26:59 pm
My post about "de-bunking"-"skeptic" mind set was in response to the post by "Just Sayin'" (above) ...
Just Sayin'
4/13/2014 04:58:45 pm
The point of my original post is that, in my humble opinion, fringe history is not science, nor should it be construed as science. Science is based on truths, supported by facts. Fringe history is based on beliefs, backed by theories. There are many uber-smart posters on this blog, of which with I cannot compete, but one thing is sure...... let's not confuse the issue by throwing around words like "de-bunkers" and "skeptics". Those titles have no purpose in science.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 05:05:56 pm
Exactly …
KIF
4/13/2014 09:59:46 pm
THE PREJUDICIAL VIEW BELONGS TO TRUE BELIEVERS LIKE REV PHIL GOTSCH AND SCOTT WOLTER - TRUE BELIEVERS IN BUNK THAT NEEDS DEBUNKING
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 01:16:47 am
Again how does this relate to the subject at hand which is Wolters unwillingness to submit his work to a peer review and his general misunderstanding as to what a peer review truly is?
Bryant Lister
4/14/2014 02:24:30 pm
Skepticism is questioning. Skeptics don't accept things for fact without adequate evidence and rational reasoning. What makes you claim that it is prejudicial and not scientific?
heidi
4/13/2014 03:00:09 pm
One word: Democracy
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/13/2014 04:38:20 pm
"Peer review" is by definition performed by one's PEERS … It is about taking one's findings to a community for discussion and review … It is indeed inherently "democratic" -- NOT aristocratic or hierarchical … It is about hashing stuff out in a group that already understands the terminology and the processes and the history …
Reply
heidi
4/13/2014 06:44:26 pm
Check yourself before you wreck yourself Phil. Your religion is showing again.,
Heidi
4/13/2014 06:49:32 pm
And while I am on this subject Phil, it is UNSURPRISING to me, that when 'decentering the subject' comes up in academic databases in relation to political science, that this derivative of French philosophy is said to be representative of conservative intellectualism and not a product of the left, but then again, it's not for nothing that the metaphor of 'the alien' is pinned by conspiracy theorists on Europeans now is it?
heidi
4/13/2014 06:53:49 pm
God forbid we stick to the historical facts of philosophical schools of thought, politics in education and any discussion of orientalism, 'the other' and it' relation to out groups or heaven forbid, queer theory.
heidi
4/13/2014 06:58:32 pm
http://youtu.be/FZDcaYsBN_4
Heidi
4/13/2014 11:21:22 pm
What would you rather discuss Reverend Phil when it comes to the metaphor of the 'alien' rather than liberal academic philosophy? Nietzsche and individuals PERCEIVED threat to Christianity or the view that secularism is just another form of Islam? http://youtu.be/aVVURiaVgG8 and the first line in this video:http://youtu.be/x9B3YsHfas0
Heidi Carter
4/13/2014 11:25:36 pm
That is my two cents Phil based on my own insight, interests, research and personal experience...after all, you are a Reverend as you went to pains to point out when you signed your comment thread...
Heidi
4/13/2014 11:35:50 pm
Don't worry Phil. God forbid we talk about politics or the deconstruction of Ontology in academia or by those well meaning arm chair, self appointed experts masquerading as anti Semites... 4/13/2014 11:36:22 pm
Phil, "peer review" refers to the editor of a journal sending an anonymous copy of a draft article to a several scholars for anonymous review to evaluate whether it meets minimal quality requirements before publishing it. The three (usually) referees don't know who else received it, and they don't speak to one another, so they can't conspire or even discuss. You are referring to academic discourse, which occurs after publication.
Heidi
4/13/2014 11:54:52 pm
I was referring to a positive view of Democracy as a synonym for intellectual liberty. Politics and getting published can be a challenge and it's not like there is NO TRUTH at all to the criticism Wolter makes. That is the flip side to using 'democracy' to both support and oppose.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 04:54:06 am
Heidi --
Heidi
4/14/2014 12:54:04 pm
Two Words: Provincial Agrarians! Be well Phil...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/17/2014 04:41:22 am
Well, yeah …
Only Me
4/13/2014 06:11:43 pm
So, once again, a thread is nearly overtaken with Philibustering.
Reply
Walt
4/13/2014 07:04:04 pm
It's important to remember what Wolter says started it all. When he initially completed his work on the KRS, it was entirely scientific in his opinion. He had no opinion at all about what the contents of the stone meant, nor did he support any fringe beliefs. He submitted a scientific report covering only his opinion of the forensic geology of the stone, and academics dismissed his scientific work because it didn't agree with what they believed, that it was a 19th century hoax. That's a prejudicial view by any definition. That one incident is what inspired him to learn about runes and runestones, and dismiss academia.
Reply
Only Me
4/13/2014 07:35:36 pm
True. But remember, Walt, those that disagreed with him did so on many fronts, including what was available and known about the linguistics, the stone's discovery, the alleged deathbed confession of it being a hoax, the lack of other artifacts where it was found, etc.
Walt
4/13/2014 08:39:55 pm
I agree. His scientific results went against so many things, those without a "forensic geology" background dismissed it. Frankly, It's hard for me to put much credence in his amateur findings, such as the meaning of runes, when he doesn't seem to have much professional support for his scientific findings. I'm waiting to hear a dozen forensic geologists support his position on the age of any artifact before I even consider believing the rest.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 03:08:36 am
No … I don't see the "peer review" process as inherent "flawed," but certainly as inherently HUMAN …
Reply
JJ
4/13/2014 11:53:16 pm
Jason, if I understand your article, it says that a board or group of geologists did review his work. Did you or anyone here actually go to them and ask what they found? *this deals with the age dating of the Kensington Runestone*. I know this does not meet your criteria of peer review, but it would be a start as to their findings.
Reply
4/14/2014 12:23:02 am
No, they didn't. As I understand it--and I am not a professional geologist--geologists often sign off on one another's reports, and this occurred with Wolter's concrete stability work. This has not, so far as Wolter has ever revealed, occurred with his fringe history work.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 04:33:41 am
Again …
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 05:00:47 am
What is in questions is not Wolters work on AU the TV show, but rather his work on the KRS ect.
Walt
4/14/2014 05:37:23 am
I have lower standards than the professionals here, but I don't even care if his scientific work is peer reviewed. He can call his own geologist friends and have them blog about his KRS findings for all I care, or even appear on his own show. Just find some geologists who are willing to state in their own name that they agree that the KRS cannot be an 18th century hoax.
JJ
4/14/2014 06:22:26 am
you are talking 'fringe history' in what you just wrote- I was talking the geology work Wolter did do on the KRS-- there was a review of that work. Have you talked to the people who did that review of his geology work on the KRS? 4/14/2014 06:28:28 am
As I understand it, Wolter showed his KRS findings to a few emeritus geology professors informally, which is his version of peer review, but so far as I can find none has publicly agreed with his conclusions.
RLewis
4/14/2014 03:00:49 am
It's clear that the Conspiracy Theorists are confused about peer review. They believe the "peers" are reviewing (and suppressing) the content and not just the process.
Reply
JJ
4/14/2014 09:54:05 am
here it would be best to actually quote these professors- to do an honest inquiry of them... to say "As I understand it" leaves me hanging to know if you would or really would not go to find out the truth.
Reply
4/14/2014 09:59:49 am
You can't quote people whose names you don't know. No geologist is on record as supporting the findings, and Wolter hasn't shared whoever these "peers" who reviewed his work are. That's on him.
JJ
4/15/2014 01:07:30 am
Jason, to be fair I did some work, went into Wolter's books and material- people are listed. I have seen you go far into finding info when you want to... this would, even for the smallest part, go a long ways in showing intent to show all angles.
Mark L
4/15/2014 02:30:38 am
Could you give us those names of the people who've publicly agrees with him then, JJ?
JJ
4/15/2014 03:46:15 am
what I am going for now, is the report of the geologists he submitted his KRS work to....you can do this, I can do this, Jason knows how to do this. I do this to find out the truth..Brian, i guess I was a bit surprised by you putting in another request- the ones who agree with him--- I was not looking for that- I am looking to how they evaluated his work, wouldn't you go about it that way, too? 4/15/2014 03:55:05 am
The point, JJ, is that there are no published materials documenting the reactions, and no published reports. You see, we keep running up against a wall: There is Wolter's book, but that's about as far as we can go.
JJ
4/15/2014 06:02:06 am
so far, I have spoken to C. Matsch...still working on more..sometimes I feel like saying, 'come on you guys if you want the info, dig for it!' There is a report- who here will work to actually read it for content?
PEER REVIEW AND ISAAC NEWTON...
4/14/2014 03:35:24 am
Robert Hooke was the president of the Royal Society and an
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 03:43:57 am
Again I ask how does this relate to the topic at hand which is Wolters refusal to submit his work to Peer Review and his general misunderstanding of what a peer review is.
Reply
ALL SW NEEDS TO DO IS OPINE ON ISAAC NEWTON!!!!
4/14/2014 04:04:06 am
Robert Hooke, like GOD, once ruled our universe grandly!
Newton's Principia (by J.A.D)
4/14/2014 03:57:10 am
I can opine if it was the turmoil of 1675 in the streets during
Reply
J.A.D
4/14/2014 04:12:46 am
Genius level science hath wonderous things, Hooke's
Reply
SW is like a Haughty Courtier of YesterYear...
4/14/2014 04:33:34 am
He has the ease & grace of an Elizabethan courtier,
Reply
Martin R
4/15/2014 08:02:26 am
And, as an offshoot of this conversation, when we speak of how to present an hour of real science that is informative, entertaining and has a likeable host, see Cosmos! It's fabulous.
Reply
B L
4/14/2014 04:36:23 am
Jason, i would be very interested in reading more about your correspondence with Nielsen regarding the KRS. Maybe sometime when things slow down you would be willing to publish more about this if you are at liberty to do so.
Reply
4/14/2014 05:01:18 am
There isn't much to say. For the most part he wanted to talk with me about the KRS, most of which is material he published on his website. He told me about areas on AU where he felt Wolter was abusing the facts, and he provided some details about their falling out, including some private information regarding the publication of their book that I can't share but was related to the actual production of the book, not its content.
Reply
B L
4/14/2014 05:14:09 am
Jason, this particular thread might not be the place for this, but....I am particularly interested in your impressions of Nielsen's personal opinions about the KRS. I have read all of what Nielsen has made public on his website, and I find it to be very believable. However, I often run across information new to me when reading your blog that further fashions my opinion. In the past you have claimed disinterest in the KRS, but I would still be highly interested in reading anything you could add to this topic.
JJ
4/14/2014 09:25:08 am
here is the best example of he said, he said.. I am surprised you bring that up.. it shows negative assertion to something you leave hanging in the air. 4/14/2014 09:27:52 am
I didn't bring it up, JJ. I answered a question. The reason I can't share the information isn't that it's nefarious but because it involves an ongoing dispute the two are having that I promised I wouldn't discuss in public since it isn't my business. You're welcome to ask Nielsen yourself, and I'm sure he'll tell you all about it.
NEWTON took his own sweet tyme to put his self under a peer review process...
4/14/2014 04:42:54 am
I am giving SW about a decade to write something about his
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 04:54:54 am
My guess is this up coming season 3 will be the last one as most shows like AU only last 3 seasons. Maybe a possible 4th season if the 3rd seasons ratings are really good but I don't see it going longer than that.
Reply
J.A.D
4/14/2014 05:07:41 am
i indeed agree...
I just watched the Amazing Race...
4/14/2014 05:06:05 am
Sunday's episode had teams realizing how to number things
Reply
plutarch is often very accurate, but with suetonius, the "divvil" is in the fine & small details, he needs a plutarch quote often...
4/14/2014 05:16:38 am
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-augustus.asp (j.a.d)
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 06:00:01 am
Anyone who is genuinely interested in understanding Scott Wolter's work on the Kensington Rune Stone is encouraged to READ the book -- "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence." (2006, Lake Superior Agate publishing) …
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 06:10:06 am
Read the book. I however and a layman. I however am more curious as to what other geologist think about his conclusions and methodology. I am sure there is good science in there, it seems like it in reading but than again it could just be a bunch of mumbo jumbo like Richard Hoaglands mathematics.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 06:32:18 am
MANY professional peer-reviewed journals receive far many more submitted articles than they can print … So the editor(s) pick and choose (yes, sometimes based upon their own views already firmly held) …
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 06:42:32 am
Still does not address Wolters reluctance and his misunderstanding.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 06:52:52 am
Matt --
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 06:58:12 am
I am just trying to stay on topic, not stray off and have it led in random directions.
Reply
Only Me
4/14/2014 08:05:47 am
Admirable effort, Matt. It seems that keeping Phil on-track with a topic he put forward is as challenging as making a rope stand up on its end!
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 08:17:01 am
Not really all it takes is direct questions and not playing into his obstruction by distraction techniques.
Rev. phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 08:57:44 am
Matt --
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 09:20:23 am
I KNOW how much you ENJOY the SNARK...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 02:28:39 pm
"Snark" IS distracting ...
Matt Mc
4/15/2014 12:36:16 am
and I believe that is the reason you post here. Snark and distractions.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 08:51:36 am
THE ongoing relentless #1 topic of these particular internet chat room blog spots is: the JOY of blasting and misrepresenting Scott Wolter -- his work, his character, his expertise …
Reply
Matt Mc
4/14/2014 09:13:11 am
How was this blog post misrepresenting Scott Wolter. He made it very clear on his blog how he feels about Peer Review. It is also obvious he does not have a true understanding of what peer review is. I have no idea why he fails to understand it. He is also the one making the claim that he is more qualified do research because he does "real science" and believes that academia and other working professionals are out to get him.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 10:43:23 am
The entire process of "peer review" in the scientific community (which is not limited to peer-reviewed journals, BTW) and how it works in the Real World and how well it works certainly IS relevant to a discussion of "peer review" of Scott Wolter's work on the KRS ... 4/14/2014 10:53:01 am
Phil, you are again conflating "peer review" (the process of sending articles to anonymous reviewers to recommend publication) with academic discourse. They are not the same thing.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 12:26:30 pm
"Peer reviewed" journals are one way of getting one's stuff out*there to BE reviewed (and critiqued and sometimes replicated) BY one's peers ... 4/14/2014 12:31:09 pm
You mean like a TV documentary? Oh wait...
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/14/2014 12:48:44 pm
Jason --
Heidi
4/14/2014 12:52:37 pm
I confess my crime. I just uploaded and shared my senior thesis paper on academia.edu on the Integration of Behavioral Modification Techniques with Spa Wellness Models. If I am robbed, it is my own fault. I WILL read the nature collection of articles on Peer Review Jason.
Heidi
4/14/2014 12:31:37 pm
Here is an independent attempt to create an alternative publishing process that reverses the current peer review process and conducts peer review AFTER publication. https://www.academia.edu/hiring/mission
Reply
Walt
4/14/2014 11:11:10 pm
Awesome! It won't get much support from the elitist crowd here, but it's exactly what should happen. Scientists should publish on their own blogs, or elsewhere, for everyone to read.
Reply
Matt Mc
4/15/2014 12:33:47 am
I agree with publishing the findings on your own blog, I think transparency is always the way to go.
Reply
Walt
4/15/2014 12:50:07 am
No doubt not having a single body to determine what's bunk and what isn't, or even what gets published and what doesn't, would result in more confusing research and even more bunk for the believers to believe in. I'm fine with that, but scientists most likely believe information should be filtered before it reaches the masses, just like some people believe AU shouldn't be on the air because some of the masses believe it unconditionally.
Matt Mc
4/15/2014 01:04:37 am
I personally think that beyond his first study of the KRS which Wolter states was work for hire. He realized that he could profit from it which has led us to where we are today.
Walt
4/15/2014 01:29:32 am
I think after his initial KRS work, which academics essentially ridiculed, he just started believing in everything academics ridiculed. I don't think it's about money. It could be about fame. But I really think it's about his manhood. They ridiculed his professional geological work, so he's now trying to prove their beliefs are incorrect.
Matt Mc
4/15/2014 01:57:21 am
I would like to say I believe that Wolter is not doing it for money and I have gone back and forth so many times. He however is following a well established pattern of being a fringe historian right down to complaining about IMBD comments. So while it might be an ego thing I cannot rule out that he has studied other fringe historians and simple doing the successful things they did. This really is not about his book sales or TV appearances but rather the good money that comes from doing conferences.
Steve StC
4/17/2014 10:52:02 am
Really Matt? 4/17/2014 01:39:47 pm
If you aren't making money as a fringe historian, you're doing it wrong. Small-press and self-published books don't make much, it's true, but Jim Marrs gets good money publishing with HarperCollins. Giorgio Tsoukalos gets between $7,500 and $10,000 per speaking engagement, according to his booking agent. Do that just once a month and you've got a good income even before the TV payments, the merchandising, etc.
Matt Mc
4/18/2014 12:26:33 am
Steve, you forget I have worked on shows like Wolter's, sure his pay for a show like AU is not that same as the one would get for a daily or weekly program but it is not something to laugh at. His salary would be equal to what many many people around this country use to support a household ( when I work on a show like AU I would get around $45k for editing 13 shows, and around $60 if that included color correction and graphics,when I was a camera man I made about $40k when I traveled). So while it might not be hundreds of thousands of dollars it is substantial enough, and when you include the getting to travel around the states and Europe, the free clothing and backpacks, per diem or free meals and at least one free family vacation that is nothing to laugh about. Plus when you add exposure and free promotion of both his books and himself it works out to be a pretty good deal. Now when you add on the increased book sales (because lets face it without the TV show his book most likely would barely sell) which still may not amount to too much but it is something and his personal experiences which would be at min a thousand be day plus food and hotel expenses it is a pretty good way to supplement an income.
Gunn
4/15/2014 05:41:04 am
Wolter didn't date the KRS. The KRS dates itself, to 1362.
Reply
RLewis
4/15/2014 06:26:22 am
With all due respect to Jason, his measure of "adequacy" is irrelevant. Peer is review is only one, very simple, yet very specific process. Anything else is simply self-promotion.
Reply
Walt
4/15/2014 11:07:31 am
I have a tough time keeping the various bogus artifacts straight. I think my description of his KRS work was really his BCS work.
Reply
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/16/2014 10:18:18 am
BINGO … !!!
Reply
4/16/2014 08:14:24 am
One More Thought on Peer Review
Reply
Exactly, John Dunham. Except that I would call the journal "Templar Coincidences." "Conspiracies" seems to reflect negative connotations...unless that would be the purpose of the journal.
Reply
http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/56/v56i03p120-128.pdf
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/16/2014 10:31:48 am
Sure …
Gunn
4/16/2014 10:45:09 am
A few weeks ago, I wondered why the name Tom Trow popped into my mind. Now I remember why.
Gunn
4/16/2014 10:38:25 am
http://mnarchsociety.org/newsletters/MAS.Winter2014.Lite.pdf
Reply
4/16/2014 10:41:23 am
Well, I guess using Wolter's definition, this counts as peer review.
Reply
Gunn
4/16/2014 10:58:12 am
Actually, I was showing how by the professionals' definition peer review might look...how it DOES look. Tom Trow is an archaeologist, commenting on stoneholes. Is this like Wolter commenting on archaeology?
Gunn
4/16/2014 11:10:49 am
I think we may both see a Villain.
Reply
Charlie Devine
4/19/2014 04:37:50 am
The entire Hooked X narrative and its presence on NA "runestones" is predicated on a premise that can never be proven: that there existed/exists a secret bloodline of Jesus Christ. Here Wolter is a scholar of history creating as the foundation of his theory a premise that cannot be proven. Why would anyone take this as more then imaginative speculation? Why would any peer review process result in publication? The Gnostic Christian writings make for fascinating reading. And indeed there is within the Gnostic tradition an acceptance of a close relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalena. But where could we ever find proof of a secret bloodline, examples from history of descendents of Jesus, his great grandchildren? The only problem here is that undue influence on the public mind is wielded by folks who woefully lack an ability to educate the American public. Give me one good teacher who can teach his/ her students how to use the discriminating power of their own intellect to see through unsubstantial fluff when it is staring them in the face.
Reply
For History's sake, it saddens me to see the hooked X runic character being sullied by the nonsense of a proposed Jesus bloodline. The hooked X, properly understood in its historical context, has nothing to do with a Jesus bloodline. In my opinion, the two are being conflated without proof, diminishing the image of the hooked X. Whereas I see the historical hooked X properly conflated by Wolter with the various American runestones, as authentically carved in a medieval setting, there is nothing I've seen, historically to tie Templars or the hooked X in with a proposed Jesus bloodline. This is the rub.
Reply
4/21/2014 01:00:30 am
I'm coming late to this thread and there may be no-one reading, but I had to make a comment re Scott Wolter, peer review and the dating of carvings in stone. It seems to me unimportant whether Scott has "submitted" or refused to submit anything for peer review. I've been in touch with over a dozen academic geologists about the very concept of dating carvings in stone by any methodology. Not one of them believes there is enough merit to the idea to even bother looking into it. Peer review takes time and effort. One professor told me that if there were any potential for dating stone carvings that doctoral students would be coming out of the woodwork wanting to do dissertations on it. But not one has. The whole notion doesn't even rise to the level of meriting peer review.
Reply
4/21/2014 01:29:06 am
Wolter's method is essentially comparative weathering, and because he isn't an archaeologist he seems to think he's the first to ever use weathering or erosion to determine the relative age of an inscription. Even he admits that it doesn't provide absolute dates, which he obtains by comparing his relative dating to fringe history literature.
Reply
Lynn Brant
4/21/2014 02:08:50 am
Isn't it true that in archaeology, relative weathering might be worthy of note when relative might mean time spans greater than the two centuries Wolter claims to have the KRS pegged to? The geologists I've talked to say that in a stone that hard, the changes over much more time that that are still so minimal and so subject to many variables, that there are no possible conclusions to be drawn. 4/21/2014 02:16:38 am
Relative dating can only tell you whether something is older or younger than something else, but in the case of the KRS, Wolter claims that he has determined that the weathering gives an absolute (though wide) date range. In the Bat Creek Stone case, he doesn't pretend this and simply dates it based on correlating a relative date (older than 1960) obtained through geology with absolute dates gained through fringe history--the alleged date of the Hebrew used on the stone--and implying geology gave him the answer. For the KRS, there are so many local factors that go into determining weathering that it is very difficult to claim a specific date range without mountains of data and comparison samples of known dates.
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/21/2014 10:28:52 am
Scott Wolter concluded that the inscription on the Kensington Rune Stone could NOT have been done by the discoverer, Olof Ohman, but was almost certainly done at least fifty to two hundred years prior to discovery …
Rev. Phil Gotsch
4/21/2014 10:25:04 am
Attempting to verify or discount the antiquity of an inscription on an artifact is not uncommon … See, e.g., the recent discovery of an ossuary in Israel reputed to be that of "James, the brother of Jesus" ...
Reply
Lynn Brant
4/25/2014 08:06:29 am
It is not possible to draw any scientific conclusions about how long any weathering on stone took to occur. Of course archeologists have long drawn conclusions about the age of inscriptions, but not from weathering. Instead from archeological context, of which the KRS has precisely zero.
Brigance
10/29/2023 09:23:55 pm
Scott Wolter is a pseudo academic Whore, who has sold out his integrity for a Buck and will do/say anything whatsoever to get $$$s, regardless of the level of deception that he has to engage into push his paymaster's BullShit! And he is NOT very knowledgeable about either proper logic or even geology, which he pretends to know, but does NOT really.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|