Talk:Robert M. Schoch

other geologists

"though mainstream Egyptology and numerous other geologists have rejected his analysis. "

First I don't see what does it matter what Egyptologists think about a geologists theory, they aren't his scientific peers to judge it. So I'm rather interested what criticism does geology give to those analysis - do they think that his analysis was methodologically flawed, or included intentional misrepresentation of the evidence, or do they just have an alternative theory, but of similar support in evidence - in that case, its a equally valid theory.

-aryah

I guess somebody is going to have to read his book and assess his methods and his refutations of the other explanations. Here is an online paper by Colin Reader which examines Schoch's theory amongst others and which suggests he has ignored the other possible explanations. adamsan 00:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Adamsan, but, Colin has told me personally that he supports Schoch's water weathering hypothesis. Colin merely disagrees with the amount of time it took and keeps his data within dynastic times. Another big problem that Colin has to contend with his total disregard of Schoch and Dobecki's subsurface seismic survey data, which gives Schoch's hypothesis a huge amount of credibility. What I find particularly interesting is that the geologist that Mark Lehner had with him at the 1991 GSA conference looked at Schoch's subsurface seismic data chart upside down. This is very telling, as he was supposed to be Lehner's star geologist to refute Schoch's work.

As to a numerous amount of geologists rejecting his work, you are misleading the visitors here. Unless, of course, you can produce names. Somewhere in Schoch's desk is a legal pad with 83 names of geologists that support his work and have given ther support if needed in the future. But, in all honesty, many geologists don't care if it's not 10,000 years old or older.

The only geologists that have attempted, though miserably, to refute Schoch's work are Alex Bordeaux, K. Lal Gauri and Harrell. What's really interesting about these three is that they work(ed) for the SCA at one time, which makes their refutations bias. Regardless, their rebuttals have been dealt with and refuted easily and quickly.

'Fringe'

Indeed. It is now years since the objection above was raised, and

1) To call Shoch's opinion on the age of the lithics around the Sphinx 'Fringe' is a brazen and biased dismissal. The estimation of a tenured geophysics PhD from Yale is about as far from 'fringe' as you can get.

2) The line that was objected to above stating that 'numerous other geologists have rejected his analysis' is pure fiction. Which, I'd guess, is why it has gone missing. But the name-calling of non-mainstream evidence-based alternative hypotheses lives on throughout Wikipedia.

3) Schoch's opinion on the Sphinx enclosure geology is based on evidence that can be seen by anyone. It is joined by much more easily visibile evidence that the orthodox story doesn't hold scientific water. Time for the ugly name-smearing intimidation to end.

4) The story that some archeologists tell about the Sphinx is based in the interpretation of some evidence, and the failure to question much more evidence ... best example: much ot the now much better and widely-known facts about the high-technology entirely evident on thousands of tons of stonework scattered up and down the Nile.

Alternative hypotheses are just that. So long as they're based in solid evidence, the fact that some (non-geologists outside the hard sciences) disagree does not make them 'fringe'. Copernicus and Galileo had alternative hypotheses as well. Copernicus kept his mouth shut, Galileo did not.

Less-biased thinkers may well know that scientists once ridiculed the idea that meteors were rocks falling out of the sky. They maintained that stance until so many rocks rained down on the small French village of L'Aigle in 1803 that Newton's position on the matter had to be dismissed Twang (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well-stated. Well-argued. Rocks falling from the sky? Indeed. Lou Sander (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, rather than "well-argued", it is a well-known fallacy called Galileo gambit. (Rocks-falling-from-the-sky is just a popular variation.) Outsider ideas do not stop being fringe because a few other outsider ideas centuries ago turned out to be true. Every idea needs to be judged by itself.

Item 1 is argumentum ad verecundiam, another well-known fallacy. See also Nobel disease.

Item 2 is just a claim without evidence.

Item 3 is just a claim without evidence.

Item 4 is just a claim without evidence.

So, fairly typical pro-fringe reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

agreed. this bio is egregious. did it even provide any background on his PHD in geophysics at Yale at ALL? Disgusting and well-disguised ad homs on repeat. I've been so deeply disappointed in the sheep that run wikipedia these past 5 years. we are living in 1984. 2601:4C1:C400:FEA0:E5C4:FEC2:2066:4D4C (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

1984 was actually a much cooler time. Take it from someone who was there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Great Sphinx of Giza

Why not a ref directly to the Giza sphinx? (Ronz 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Awkward Sentence

This sentence seems very awkward to me:

Schoch's other theories include the belief that possibly all pyramids —in Egypt, Mesoamerica and elsewhere —represent (in the sense that the general concept of pyramids is inherited, along with many other cultural commonalities) a much older global culture, or at least that there was cultural contact around the world in ancient times.

I will edit and update it in the next day our two. Phersh (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Subjects to be covered

I'm working on improving this article. IMHO, the areas possibly to be covered include, in no special order:

• Early life and education
• Paleontology & evolution
• Sphinx
• Yonaguni
• Textbooks and teaching
• Pyramids, including Bosnia
• Natural catastrophes
• Parapsychology
• Stratigraphy
• Individual articles on his books, where appropriate
• Speaking and lecturing

Lou Sander (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the section on environmentalism. It was too close to the original text, some bits directly copied, and it's basically promotional. You'll need independent sources for all of that. Nothing on his personal life? Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

One of his books is said to have some personal information. Boston University apparently doesn't say much about that stuff for their faculty members. I will keep working on it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

His books do have personal information. We generally treat that sort of thing (eg someone's statements on their website) as what they've said, not as fact. I'm not sure how much personal information we should put in. His two wives, his children (whose names in any case we probably shouldn't mention). Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking possibly date and place of birth, where he was raised, maybe something about his parents. His wives have collaborated with him a bit (but I'm not saying that that means we should mention them). Right now, he seems to have just materialized at George Washington University, and the first date is that of his PhD. Third party info about his land trust (or whatever) and elective office in Attleboro is probably available if somebody looks hard enough, but IMHO isn't worth the effort. OTOH, local reporting on political races often states the ages of the candidates, so might be an independent source on how long he has been around. Lou Sander (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there is the fact that he's only notable for his fringe publications - without those we almost certainly wouldn't have an article on him. Land trust? Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Books removed

I deleted two books from Published works. Environmental Ethics got an ISBN and was never published. Development of Environmental Thought was a series of class notes to be handed out to students. It got an ISBN only so they could sell it in the college bookstore. Lou Sander (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well spotted. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Recently paid a predatory publisher to publish an article with Robert Bauval

See this. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So, Weller: how's that opposition to the YDIH been working for you lately? Twang (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Fringe

The contents of the section seem to clearly established to be WP:FRINGE: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Describing them as "Alternative" or "Non-mainstream" would appear to WP:PROFRINGE. I could be wrong, of course - feel free to ask for clarification on the fringe theories noticeboard.--tronvillain (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, it's fringe. :) --the eloquent peasant (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the word "fringe" in the introductory paragraph brings into question the objectivity of the Wikipedia article. Any new idea will go against prevailing views or mainstream ideas when it is introduced. Compare the following two sentences and the effect on the reader of the word "fringe":

"Since 1991, Schoch has been a proponent of the fringe Sphinx water erosion hypothesis."

"Since 1905, Einstein was a proponent of the fringe theory of relativity."

It is only through scientific validation that something becomes mainstream. It took many years to validate Einstein's ideas, and it may take many years to prove the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. I think the role of Wikipedia should be like a reference work. It is OK to have a "Fringe" section that discusses dissent from the community, but Wikipedia should not be using the word "fringe" to characterize a scientific hypothesis outside of that section. Sciencebookworm (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how NPOV works. Go read WP:FRINGE. We identify fringe views as fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Page Corrections Proposed

1) Remove "fringe" in the summary and header 2) Replace "Response from academics with Response from critics" 3) This text Schoch is best known for his fringe argument that the Great Sphinx of Giza is much older than conventionally thought and that some kind of catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch redated the monument to 10,000–5,000 BC, based on his argument that its erosion was due mainly to the effects of water, rather than wind and sand, and also based on findings from seismic studies around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8] These conclusions do not have consensus in the scientific community.

should instead say something like this:

Schoch is best known for his proposal that the Great Sphinx of Giza is older than conventionally thought and that a solar event-triggered climate catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch initially re-dated the original lion monument to 7,000–5,000 BC, based on his observation that vertical erosion channels only seen on the enclosure walls of the Sphinx and not elsewhere on the Giza Plateau were due the effects of rain and run-off, rather than wind and sand which cause horizontal erosion channels also seen elsewhere on the Giza Plateau, corroborated by seismic refraction measurements he obtained with Thomas Doebcki around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8]. The original estimate was based on linear modeling of the seismic data and Schoch later revised his estimate to circa 10,000 BC using a more realistic non-linear subsurface decay model of the data. Schoch's model predicted that megalithic building by prehistoric people need not leave an archeological footprint and this was later confirmed when Goebekli Tepe was discovered by Klaus Schmidt and the German Archeological Institute. Schoch also proposed that that the head and rump section of the Sphinx were the only parts actually (re)carved during the Old Kingdom, presumably, but not necessarily by Khafre. This explained the disproportionately small head of the Sphinx relative to the size of its body.

Schoch's re-dating of the original construction of the Sphinx is not accepted by the Egyptological community which believes Khafre made the Sphinx though some Egyptologists have also questioned if it might not have been Khufu or Djedefre, and not Khafre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It is fine as it is, so no.Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to Roxy the dog: Your comment proves that you are not interested in having this page show the actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

au contraire mon ami. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to Roxy the dog: Words, even in French, mean nothing when not backed by action. What I observe here is that some WP editors with reversion powers themselves are biased by the one-word "fringe" label and cannot look at the actual evidence. And this is how easy it is to disseminate the new censorship. All you need is a catch phrase like "fringe" or "pseudoscience" imposed by one of you and thus information is consumed instead of processed by all the others and the public at large. Is this what WP wants to represent? I can't imagine. I think you people need to have a hard look at what you're doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to WP:PROMOTE. —PaleoNeonate – 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Schoch's views on archaeology are fringe/pseudoscience. This is supported by multiple sources cited in the article. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jason Colavito is not an academic

But his criticism is referenced under Response from Adademics.

This isn't very BLP-like. I propose to remove it, even though BLP would allow me to do it without notice. Lou Sander (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a reason to change the section heading at most, not remove a reliable source. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)