Apparently on date 26 Jun 2004 13:17:44 -0700, (George) said:

Martyn Harrison wrote in message . ..
Apparently on date 25 Jun 2004 19:21:31 -0700, (George) said:

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message ...
carl wrote:

you bet! and if you want to see a sea worthy Waka Hourua head on down
to the Auckland maritime museum , they look very little like a
canadian canoe and they go significantly faster.

Those who have studied both types of craft disagree.

No.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/about-nz/culture/discovery-vintage-new-zealand/$profiles/hekenukumai-busby.cfm
is as much a real authority on the Waka as its possible to find.
The Canadian dug out
http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/wa.../wad05eng.html resembles
the waka in no way what so ever.

You know, I've never imagined that they were so different. A dug out canoe
ought to resemble any other, initially, regardless of who built it and where.
But the finishing off is quite significant and, as you say, quite differently
executed.

It's remarkable that Heyerdhal didn't even check to see if there were
similarities between the two, in order to see that, actually, there are
striking differences.

This is always the sad thing about the heyerdahls of the world. Once
they have an idea there is no shifting them.
All the linguistic and genetic evidence wasn't enough to convince him
And here, his devotee Yuri accepts the waka claim, without actually
comparing the Canadian logboat and the waka stating his 'knowledge'
comes from 'experts' in the field, who, when examined, have no
expertise in the field.....

Quite.

The puzzling thing about this, is the motivation. Clearly, a poster reads a
book, a misleading one, and comes to a newsgroup where they present their
opinions on some matter, opinions formed by the book they have read.

These opinions are devalued by reasoning, extra information, etc. The proper
response to this is:

1) as an absolute minimum, identify that the opinion(s) were, in the first
place, mistaken.

2) react to this information, probably the most likely way is to squink out of
it, by unjust logical games, etc.

3) or to accept the information and learn more (heck, this is usually no fun)

4) or to drop the debate rather than digging the hole deeper, and come back in
with a different set of opinions (and possibly a different usenet identity).

Possibly option 4) is the least loss of "face", 2) gets you labeled by most
people (who aren't as easily fooled as posters like to imagine) and 3) is most
likely the best way to build a good reputation.

Option 1) is absolutely essential, failing to realise when you are wrong is a
mental disease of some sort, either the issue is too difficult to understand
(i.e. people who reject relativity do so due to not being able to understand
it) or it is easy to understand and your own mind is deceiving you. Matters
like are discussed in here, almost all fit the "easy to comprehend" category,
so failing to achieve 1) comprehension of error, points to a very stupid or
confused person.

Options 2 - 4 reflect a persons attitude, possibly at the time, the less honest
strategies are likely to be most common.

One of the problems I can see, is a false belief in personal credibility.
Someone may believe other people hold them in high regard. In this case,
changing their opinion, however wrong it may be, would threaten a loss of
credibility with these unknown lurkers. If that is how someone imagines things,
they really ought to try smelling the coffee and reflect that opinion of the
masses, generally follows the opinions expressed. If people in here, are not
agreeing, chances are that this is reflected in the people who are here but do
not (or rarely) speak.

IOW, when you realise you are in error, the way you react, and what people
subsequently say about you / your ideas, is probably pretty much a reflection
of the actual reputation of you / your ideas.

Putting this another way, if Yuri was agreeing with me, I'd have to sit down
and have a good long think about what it is I have gotten so badly wrong.

In the case of Heyerdhal, his "reputation" reflects book sales. This is a very
real thing and his motivation is quite different, he is making money by doing
what people want him to do. He isn't trying to do science.