No criticism so far has been valid Erlingsson
NEWS RELEASE 2004-09-07 for immediate release
Dr. Ulf Erlingsson visited Ireland in mid-August, amid a storm of criticism according to some media reports. Having now returned home and had a chance to review the criticism, his conclusion is that there is still no valid argument against his hypothesis. On the contrary, the Irish archaeology he saw on his visit strongly supports the hypothesis.
When landing on Ireland, he got the question what he had to say to his critics, and responded, I am expecting criticism. A hypothesis only survives until proven wrong. It is part of the scientific method, so I am welcoming a vivid debate. *
Dr. Ulf Erlingsson presents his hypothesis in the book Atlantis from a Geographers Perspective: Mapping the Fairy Land (URL: www.atlantisinireland.com). It will be released in about a month.
are some of the critical voices that have appeared in media in the UK
and Ireland, together with Dr. Erlingssons replies:
In the Guardian: Mark Hennessy, a geographer from Trinity College Dublin, said the theory was "extremely far-fetched".
Erlingssons reply: Quite the contrary, Id say. It is right under his nose. Now, the Antarctic, or Indonesia, that is far-fetched. Seriously, though, it is only his personal opinion, and opinions are irrelevant as far as science is concerned.
In the Guardian: Colin Breen, a lecturer in maritime archaeology at the University of Ulster, said: "We know what the seabed around Ireland looks like. If there was a lost city there, we would know about it."
Erlingssons reply: As an expert in underwater mapping with 20+ years of experience, and having conducted mapping for marine archaeologists in the excavation of Birka in Sweden, this is my primary field of expertise. It would have been illogical for me to suggest such a thing without first having carried out a scientific expedition to the place, with side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and deep sea diving.
In the Irish Examiner: But a University College Galway academic [Geography Department head Prof Ulf Strohmayer] dismissed Dr Erlingssons theories as bizarre and added that it was impossible to compare a mythical planet which may never have existed with a living, breathing country.
Erlingssons reply: Planet? What is bizarre is his choice of word, since Plato described an island, not a planet. Furthermore, the criticism is irrelevant for my hypothesis, since I am not suggesting that Platos utopia was for realonly that it was based on a real place, just as Plato himself wrote. Irrelevant comments are so predictable that I dismissed them already in the book itself; I quote from page 84: Hypotheses must be formulated and tested properly, without irrelevant arguments. [ ] You may think that something is science fiction, but keep that to yourself instead, show with valid and relevant arguments why it is not correct, and treat your colleagues with respect.
In the Guardian: Ulf Strohmayer, the head of geography at University College Galway, described it as wishful thinking to satisfy longing for a past utopia.
Erlingssons reply: Prof. Strohmayer here questions my motive for advancing the hypothesis, while not discussing the benefits or shortfalls of the hypothesis itself. It is yet an irrelevant argument as defined by the old Greeks.
In Ireland Online: The National Museum of Ireland director Dr Patrick Wallace said today that there was no archaeological basis to associate Ireland with the utopian land. Dr Wallace explained: We can say that we know of no archaeological evidence which would support Dr. Erlingssons theory.
Erlingssons reply: Dr Wallaces response is clever but misleading. It is true that they know of no archaeological evidence which would support the hypothesishowever, this is not because the evidence is absent, but simply because they are not familiar with the hypothesis!
me to elaborate. Newgrange, Knowth and Tara obviously exist. However,
when I came up with my hypothesis (which implies that the megalith culture
had its centre on Ireland) I did not know that Ireland had unique megalithic
monuments. Therefore, the archaeological evidence is independent data
in relation to the hypothesis, and thus, the Irish archaeology strongly
supports the hypothesis. But Dr Wallace could impossibly know that
just as he said.
* This was erroneously quoted as I expect to have my knockers. But we must assume that I am right until others can prove I am wrong. That rephrasing is of course inacceptable, since it implies disrespect both for the scientific method and for academic colleagues.
Lindorm Publishing, +1-305 888 0762, email@example.com
Click here for an interesting treatise on Atlantis. Its authors maintain that Atlantis was NOT in the Atlantic Ocean.