Clowns and moron logic

Bring out the Clowns

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/bring-out-clowns.html

By Paul Barford

The US is considering renewing the bilateral cultural property agreement with Cyprus pursuant to the US being a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property'. This is the occasion of the inception of yet another parade of moron logic from US collectors of dugup ancient coins. The first public comment has been published on the e.gov website. The author writes:

U.S. import restrictions [on illegally exported artefacts] will not, in any case, deter looters because there will always be a world market for coins. [...]. These import restrictions will, however, undermine a hobby of great value to historians, numismatists, lovers of metallic art and your people. I hope you will oppose import restrictions.

It is not clear to whom this person thinks he is writing, it looks ("your people") as if he will be surprised to learn that he was addressing to the Washington-based Cultural Property Advisory Committee. It looks like he is unaware also of the fact that the import restrictions are already in place and here are merely up for renewal (his lack of awareness on this raises the question of what actual - rather than imagined - effect the measures are indeed having on US collectors if some of them do not even know they exist). Probably the author of this comment would also be equally surprised to learn that the 1970 UNESCO Convention rather than "looting" is about "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property". This rather reduces the impact of his suggestion (unthinkingly cut-and-pasted from Peter Tompa's instructions):

To prevent looting of coins, medal detectors are the thing to regulate not trade in coins.

In what way does the writer of this advice to the CPAC think that the use of metal detectors to search for collectables on the archaeological sites of Cyprus is not "regulated", and how would deregulating trade in dugup artefacts (that is allowing an unmonitored free-for-all) "prevent looting"? The attitude of coiney collectors over in the US to metal detectors (the tool) and metal detectorists (those who use them for seeking various things - including meteorites) seems wholly ambiguous. Why "regulate metal detectors" and not - for example "spades"? In what way is the Washington CPAC entitled to dictate the rights and restrictions of Cypriot citizens the other side of the world? Why anyway should any Cypriot government listen to a bunch of collectors of decontextualised ancient bric-a-brac to some and potentially to a large extent dug up while trashing archaeological sites in foreign countries and smuggled out of them in defiance of antiquity preservation and export legislation? These people seem hardly in a position to dictate anything to anyone, still less a foreign government .

...

*********************

COMMENTARY

*********************

Hmm. Clowns and moron logic? Perhaps the author of this screed might have given a bit of thought to using such terms to describe a collector ... people who live in glass houses, etc. What he has written, in the eyes of any genuinely knowledgeable and intelligent observer, actually recoils and rebounds against his unceasing efforts to denigrate "coineys" and other collectors. Examining the "points" he so unsuccessfully essayed to make in his blog post:

1) It is not clear to whom this person thinks he is writing, it looks ("your people") as if he will be surprised to learn that he was addressing to the Washington-based Cultural Property Advisory Committee.

All that the commenter need understand is that he is addressing the US Government in presenting his opinions regarding the proposed MOU extension.

2) It looks like he is unaware also of the fact that the import restrictions are already in place and here are merely up for renewal (his lack of awareness on this raises the question of what actual - rather than imagined - effect the measures are indeed having on US collectors if some of them do not even know they exist).

It looks as though the blogger does not understand the 1983 CCPIA, which essentially anticipated that nearly all MOUs would NOT be renewed and would instead be allowed to lapse unless very convincing evidence could be shown, to the effect that the proposed continuation of what was presumed to be a temporary emergency justifying extraordinary measures would be justified. Congress did not ever intend that MOUs should automatically be renewed unless some extraordinary situation intervened. The way the question of renewal has been twisted around into the exact opposite of what Congress intended is ipso facto convincing evidence that Maria Kouroupas and her henchmen have systematically undermined, frustrated and negated the legislative intent of Congress and the very purpose of the 1983 CCPIA.

3) Probably the author of this comment would also be equally surprised to learn that the 1970 UNESCO Convention rather than "looting" is about "the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property". This rather reduces the impact of his suggestion (unthinkingly cut-and-pasted from Peter Tompa's instructions):

To prevent looting of coins, medal detectors are the thing to regulate not trade in coins.

Probably the author of the blog post in question would be surprised to learn that the title of the 1970 UNESCO Convention does not really describe what it is about, and that its actual purpose is very clearly to control "looting" in all its forms, from stripping a nation of ethnological and historical artifacts that have never been buried, to smuggling antiquities that might once have been buried. This very typical quibble is evidence of his own obfuscating attempts at logic chopping, which might meet with more success if he understood the formal discipline of logic and the very basic and easily understood list of elementary fallacies into which his own arguments so frequently fall. It is not however really fair to criticize him for this, because the pseudo-science of archaeology is inherently illogical in so many of its tenets and allegedly "scientific" methods. The writings of the blogger in question are indeed very clear evidence that archaeology does not in fact actually follow the scientific method, and is therefore not a real science but instead, only an imperfectly organized discipline of study which might be described as a pseudoscience. As in the case of alchemy and astrology, both of which eventually evolved (after many centuries of study and experiment) into real sciences.

4) In what way does the writer of this advice to the CPAC think that the use of metal detectors to search for collectables on the archaeological sites of Cyprus is not "regulated", and how would deregulating trade in dugup artefacts (that is allowing an unmonitored free-for-all) "prevent looting"?

Can the author of the blog post in question establish that Cyprus is doing anything effective to actually regulate use of metal detectors on that island? Or is he instead under the impression that publishing a decree regarding their use suffices?

Why does he think that " deregulating trade in dugup artefacts" must be shown to prevent looting in order to be justified? He has got the question the wrong way around, as he so often (one might say habitually) does. The actual requirement, according to the 1983 CCPIA, is to show that regulating trade in artifacts of types that might conceivably (even if only rarely) have been "dugup" is absolutely necessary to control looting for a relatively short time, while the source state in question brings the situation under control by its own efforts.

5) The attitude of coiney collectors over in the US to metal detectors (the tool) and metal detectorists (those who use them for seeking various things - including meteorites) seems wholly ambiguous.

The attitude of US collectors is not ambiguous at all, it is instead based upon a perception that nations such as the Republic of Cyprus must solve their own problems, and that it is unfair and unreasonable to create difficulties for US collectors because foreign governments are unable to control the behavior of their own citizens. A government that cannot do that, ipso facto stands indicted as being incompetent to be the steward and guardian of cultural property of any sort. This is of course an example of a consequent logical conclusion, which the blogger in question has not been trained to understand or to recognize.

6) Why "regulate metal detectors" and not - for example "spades"?

Spades are used for many innocent and socially beneficial purposes, whereas metal detectors can only be used to search for buried metal artifacts, which is exactly the sort of behavior the blogger himself incessantly condemns -- as any metal detectorist could attest to.

7) In what way is the Washington CPAC entitled to dictate the rights and restrictions of Cypriot citizens the other side of the world?

It is entitled to recommend to the US Government that the requests of the Cypriot government are not in the best interests of the USA.

8) Why anyway should any Cypriot government listen to a bunch of collectors of decontextualised ancient bric-a-brac to some and potentially to a large extent dug up while trashing archaeological sites in foreign countries and smuggled out of them in defiance of antiquity preservation and export legislation?

Who cares what the Cypriot government listens to? Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond their own borders.

Of course, the blogger in question does not believe that, just as he does not believe in the rule of law or that archaeology should be subject to the rule of law and should accordingly respect the legal rights of collectors. Instead he advocates that archaeology should be entitled to dictate to everyone what "moral law" regarding "dugup artefacts" is, and that archaeology is personified by him, and that as the personification of archaeology he should be allowed to incessantly criticize, insult, denigrate and even libel and slander anyone and everyone who disagrees with his own extremist views. Which views clearly include those of almost everyone else in the discipline of archaeology, to whom the blogger in question has become an enormous and discrediting embarrassment and figuratively, a virtual albatross hung around their neck.

9) These people seem hardly in a position to dictate anything to anyone, still less a foreign government .

The only government "these people" seek to dictate to is their own. And they will indeed do so, as they are constitutionally entitled to do and morally required to do for the US government is the servant, not the master of the American people. They are responsible to themselves and to the whole world for keeping a good lookout, and keeping their government under proper discipline and control (no conspiracies, riots or mutinies by officials or employees of that government against their right to command can or will be tolerated). They are responsible for their government's obligation to scrupulously and carefully always obey the rules of the road, and for carefully plotting its course and guiding it through the tumultuous seas across which it must sail, neither colliding with other ships of state nor running down any of innumerable small craft owned and steered by private individuals innocently going about their lawful business.

The US ship of state, steered by a conspiring gang of mutinous bureaucrats disobeying the accepted rules of conduct for its crew and rebelling against discipline necessary for its proper control and direction, has lately run down many small craft owned and steered by private individuals innocently going about their lawful business. It is past time to put down that mutiny and get our ship back on course.