<HTML>Margaret Morris is quite correct in her assertions. I re-invented ancient history to accommodate the technology that I speculated (not asserted) was used to build the Great Pyramid and other impressive monuments and artifacts. (To clear up this point I should point out that my original manuscript was riddled with the word speculated. My copy editor asked me not to be redundant by restating it over and over again.)
To Margaret Morris, my methodology appears horrendous. I can understand that. In fact, in retrospect, for some passages in my book, I would say that in the more speculative portion of my book, my flights of fancy went too far. If I were to write my book again, I would probably not include the quote from Cayce… But, hey, the publisher loved it and I didn't sell my soul to the devil—so to speak. At the time I wrote it I was unaware that such a passionate disdain for people who get their inspiration from "alternative" sources existed. I now know that mentioning him has, in some quarters, damaged my credibility.
In The Giza Power Plant, my treatment of the geopolymer hypothesis <I>was</I> brief and dismissive. I wasn't even going to mention it until my publisher advised me to include some reference to it because of the attention it had received when first proposed. I admit it was terrible methodology. At the time I didn't realize how wide my audience would be and I was addressing this important hypothesis in a manner that would be understood by practical artisans, such as myself. I admit it was far from being academic. If I had researched the subject fully, I would have found expert testimony that the limestone in the pyramids were natural stone. Instead I took the easy way out and said that if they were indeed determined to be geopolymers, it still did not explain the existence of many granite and diorite artifacts that display characteristics that cannot be produced by pouring or packing geopolymer stone, and which must have required advanced knowledge and machines.
Margaret Morris is quite correct that I am unwilling and unable to understand the properties of geopolymeric rock-concrete. I freely admit my lack of capacity in this regard. Chemistry always made my eyes glaze over. It is the most boring subject I ever took. Because of my disinterest in the subject, I am quite happy to rely on experts in the field. In fact, my profession demands that I rely on experts in many fields. Lives and profit are at stake.
Nonetheless, I am quick to learn from my mistakes and listen to criticism that will facilitate learning. But I am spoiled. My company has an environment in which new ideas are treated with respect. Our employees are not ridiculed for voicing their opinions. Experience is valued, respected and is necessary for our industry to maintain a competitive edge. The catchphrase is "there are no dumb ideas." In my world, new ideas do not result in reams of text that are masticated, meticulously dissected and subject to an exhaustive study of what was written about the subject by authorities in the past before being implemented. In my world new ideas are discussed by experts at different levels. The principle questions are, "will it work? What is the ROI?" What people understood and wrote ten, twenty and especially one hundred years ago is either obsolete or already ingrained and really of little consequence. I am beginning to learn that in this arena, such is not the case.
Professionalism, to me, is quite different than what I have read in some academic journals and on message boards. Take, for instance, the Journal of Geological Education. Margaret Morris was subject to an abuse that is discouraged and has no place in my environment. When Harrell on page 195 of Volume 42 stated, "Morris is a freelance writer who works for Davidovits as his publicist. She has no geological or other scientific training and yet purports to tell us how to analyze the Lauer sample, a stone specimen collected by Egyptologist Dr. Jean-Phillipe Lauer from the Ascending Passageway in the Khufu pyramid at Giza." I recognized that Dr. Harrell was engaging in an ad hominum attack. There was absolutely no need to bring this up! Then he called upon the egotistic emotions of the reader by injecting standard debunking phrases such as, "I am sure the astute reader will see Morris' objections for what they really are: <I>ad hoc</I> and pseudoscientific, riddled with contradictions and technical errors, and founded on misinformation and misinterpretation." (I'm glad he didn't accuse her of torturing evidence.) Care to guess how many readers of this journal are not astute? Before even addressing the substantive issues, Harrell has already compromised his reader's objectivity. Is this the level of scholarship that academia would have us emulate?
Scientists do themselves and their profession a disservice by engaging in such divisive rhetoric. The gallery may cheer, but the <I>truly</I> astute reader will recognize it for what it is. Argue the man/woman and not the issue.
Margaret Morris is a brilliant woman. She can wrap more words around a subject than anyone I have ever met. With my utmost admiration for her prolixity, therefore, she can have her last word. I have more work to do. I need to do more research, fix my mistakes and convey what I have learned in a more "scholarly" fashion.
Katherine, I like the tone you have established for your website. Congratulations. I hope your visitors help you maintain it.
Sincerely,
Christopher Dunn
July Twenty-Sixth Two-Thousand and ONE.... (ok Anthony? :>)</HTML>
