

Expert Confirms Authenticity Of Vinland Map - iamwil
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1722913/expert_confirms_authenticity_of_vinland_map/index.html

======
mdasen
Except that their "expert" is completely wrong.

A simple trip to Wikipedia would show that he knows nothing. It's really bad
when Wikipedia knows more about your field than you do. There have been
several studies proving that the map is a forgery.

The problem is that most people don't understand the scientific method. With
the scientific method, you take a hypothesis (that the map is authentic) and
then you try to find evidence disproving it. Once you have found evidence
disproving the hypothesis, it doesn't matter how good a forgery it is, it's
still a forgery.

For real scientific analysis:

<http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/clark.php>

<http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/mccrone.php>

<http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/cahill.php>

Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. If
you're accused of murder, you had a grudge against the guy, people heard you
say you'd kill him, and you bought a gun that day, that's all evidence that
you might have killed him. But if a group of people all saw you at the time of
the murder, then you didn't kill him no matter how compelling that other
evidence is - in science, a single disproving fact invalidates supporting
evidence because that's what truth is.

~~~
antaeos
_Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't._

Speaking of ignorance of the scientific method...

Look, this is what science is about. It's an accomplishment of multiplicitous
scepticism over time. Imagine if people had harbored the same iron-clad
certainty as to the completeness of Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. They'd
probably say something along the lines of, "Sure, there are things that point
to space-time distortion around heavy bodies, but that's not the case." And if
they were feeling particularly sinister, they'd follow up with, "Look at the
wikipedia entry for the facts."

Many things once held to be true are revolutionized by advances in technology.
There is absolutely no reason to question the rigour and knowledge with which
the Danish expert approached this study. A cursory look (which we seem so fond
of today) at his credentials reveals a man of some experience:
<http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176>

Science is objective scepticism over many, many cycles. It's not a cursory
look at a wikipedia page.

------
dtf
The way they draw wiggly lines around the coast - is that supposed to be
geographically correct? Or is it just shorthand for "beware: coast is wiggly"?

~~~
liquidben
I think the artist was implying accuracy that he probably couldn't vouch for.

So it's supposed to be geographically correct, but the advanced reader can
take it as shorthand for wiggly coast.

