I'll report more fully on tonight's MPP lecture in Moylgrove when I have looked through my notes, but I am not best pleased. In the Q&A session after the talk, I observed that he had dismissed the glacial transport theory out of hand, and asked him "On what basis do you dismiss the theory that the Stonehenge bluestones were carried from Pembrokeshire by glacier ice?" He replied: "Because we have found a quarry." I tried to get him to answer the question, but he refused point-blank, and said "There is no point in discussing this. The discussion is over. It's finished."
So there we are then. A number of words come to mind, but they are all unprintable. Shall we just say that I am less than impressed?
A friend of mine, and another former geomorphology student of yours at Durham University, Brian, compares Mr Mike Parker Pearson with Mr Richard Branson: both very good at promoting and marketing their latest "brands" to world-wide audiences. However, what would happen to Mike Parker Pearson's LONG TERM reputation, legacy indeed, should the penny eventually drop, as it were, and it was realised that his Pet Theory is like the Story of the Emperor with No Clothes? Would he just say "Oh dear!"? And would there be no point in discussing THAT, EITHER?
ReplyDelete"There is no point in discussing this. The discussion is over. It's finished."
ReplyDeleteAnd so is your theory my friend!
Brian,
ReplyDeleteFrom MPP's response to your legitimate question, it is clear MPP is not interested in the truth. Only interested in having his narrative shtick. It is futile trying to convince him (and others) otherwise with sound sensible reason.
Kostas
Open up your mind, Anon. As Popper said a long time ago, science advances through the falsification of theories. Not by the promotion of ruling hypotheses. I asked MPP to seek to falsify the glacial transport theory, and he simply refused to engage. Not impressed.
ReplyDelete