Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;savitale, post: 10684677, member: 95284&quot;]I agree that fault, if any is to be found, rests largely with the public media who publish click-bait stories for revenue generation. However, the authors do have a responsibility to keep that sort of thing in-check by writing responsible manuscripts. It is important to consider that this work was submitted for publication to a scientific journal, which casts an aura of scientific credibility, and “justifies” the above click-bait. I see three questions the article proports to answer, only one of which belongs in a science journal:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><i>1. Was the Sponsian coin produced in the 3rd century or is it a relatively recent 17/18th century fantasy piece?</i></p><p><br /></p><p>This is a very good question and it can be tested against the scientific data. Materials analysis may not be up to the task of arriving at a definitive answer but it can certainly add to stylistic, literary, and other forms of evidence to allow one to draw a conclusion.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><i>2. Was Sponsian a real historical figure?</i></p><p><br /></p><p>This is not a good question to ask of the science data. Maybe if you had ancient DNA on the coin or something like that, but not a coin by itself devoid of archaeological context. Here the authors leave the scientific arena and move into a different realm. Arguments on either side of this question belong in a book, a blog, a forum, or a humanities journal where scientific support is not assumed. Alternatively I suppose one could argue that PLOS One is not a scientific journal but they seem to advertise that they hold to scientific standards.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><i>3. Is Sponsian a lost Roman Emperor?</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Again this cannot be answered by the science data available and doesn’t belong in a science journal with its perceived aura of credibility. My personal feeling is that even if the coins were produced in the 3rd century and Sponsian was a real person, he was not a Roman Emperor in a meaningful let’s-alert-the-BBC sense but instead a military official of minor consequence on the outskirts of the Roman world. Others may hold a different view, which is fine. But either way PLOS One did no favors to its scientific credibility by publishing that conclusion drawn from the reported evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>In my opinion using materials analysis as employed in this paper is wholly appropriate for the first question, but given the limitations of the material evidence it degrades into pseudo-science for the latter two.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in