Created Mon 31st Mar 5:55am PDT by orlin

All questions » Science » Scientific Discoveries » 

Will the new excavation of Stonehenge prove the theory that it was a "Pre-historic Lourdes"?

After over a month of consideration, I've decided to void this question on the basis of its possible settlement being entirely subjective.

BBC News put this out in the week before the broadcast of their documentary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7625145.stm I have found nothing released since.

Trying to settle this question based on the previous editor's clarification becomes a matter of subjective interpretation, which is especially troublesome since the question concerns scientific proof.

Furthermore, there is a real problem with a question set at 45% Yes in which the creator demands a settlement of No a month after asking it, based on scientific work preceding the asking of the question. Secondly, a critical reading of the material in the BBC article makes it clear that "proof" regarding the truth of the Lourdes hypothesis was not really possible within the limited scope of the restricted dig. They were looking at dating things they found in a tiny hole, and that alone could never produce the kind of "bigger picture" required to establish the purpose of the site.

Background:

Settlement details: As reported by the BBC.

This will be Settled as Yes if the BBC reports that the results of the dig show that the "Pre-historic Lourdes" theory is the most likely of all existing theories on the original purpose of Stonehenge.

Will the new excavation of Stonehenge prove the theory that it was a "Pre-historic Lourdes"?

    Yes

Zoom out

Forecast history, %

   Zoom in

Voided

	Yes	45%
	No	55%

Voided Tue 28th Oct 4:57am PDT

Suspend date: Sat 1st Nov 12:59am PDT

Initial likelihoods: Yes: 45%

Action history:

Created Mon 31st Mar 5:55am PDT by orlin

Edited Mon 31st Mar 2:32pm PDT by lesley

Settlement requested Thu 29th May 9:48pm PDT by orlin: The question already can be settled as "NO".
According to the newly published report of the BBC, Stonehenge was a royal burial place.
This discovery is well founded and scientifically prouved.
Whatever will be the findings of the new excavation the question refers, the theory of the 'Neolithic loureds' cnannot be "the most likely" because the theory of the 'Royal burial place' is founded on archeological and scientifical evidences and is far more persuasive.
There is no need to wait until the autumn to be convinced in that.

BBC: Stonehenge 'a long-term cemetery'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7426195.stm

Settlement requested Thu 29th May 11:41pm PDT by orlin: "Stonehenge was a place of burial"

The news is so significant that it is published also by Associated Press and reprinted by CNN.

Must be a "NO"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/29/stonehenge.ap/index.html

Suspended Fri 30th May 2:38am PDT by kruijs: Suspended pending settlement

Settlement requested Fri 30th May 2:38am PDT by kruijs: according to orlin (market suspended)

Unsuspended Mon 9th Jun 5:33am PDT by lesley: See comment by Lesley

Settlement requested Mon 22nd Sep 2:27pm PDT by jenniandboys: Well... they still think they were right after the dig.. not sure if that should settle the question..
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/22/uk.stonehenge.healing.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Changed Description Thu 23rd Oct 4:44am PDT by tomg: show details

... successful in proving their theory? <?<br/> <br/> <a href='http:// ... /science/nature/7322134.stm</a> <><br/> <a href='http://news. ... /science/nature/7321882.stm</a> <><br/> <a href='http://www. ... .uk/history/programmes/stonehenge/</a> <><br/> <br/> SEE SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT

Changed Settlement info Thu 23rd Oct 4:44am PDT by tomg: show details

... As reported by the BBC. <.<br/> <br/> This will be

Voided Tue 28th Oct 4:57am PDT by infernalmachine: After over a month of consideration, I've decided to void this question on the basis of its possible settlement being entirely subjective.

BBC News put this out in the week before the broadcast of their documentary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7625145.stm I have found nothing released since.

Trying to settle this question based on the previous editor's clarification becomes a matter of subjective interpretation, which is especially troublesome since the question concerns scientific proof.

Furthermore, there is a real problem with a question set at 45% Yes in which the creator demands a settlement of No a month after asking it, based on scientific work preceding the asking of the question. Secondly, a critical reading of the material in the BBC article makes it clear that "proof" regarding the truth of the Lourdes hypothesis was not really possible within the limited scope of the restricted dig. They were looking at dating things they found in a tiny hole, and that alone could never produce the kind of "bigger picture" required to establish the purpose of the site.

hide

Suspend date: Sat 1st Nov 12:59am PDT
more info...

Get widget!

Predictions (85)

85 predictions

5 weeks ago

visionality predicted No (H$500 at 71%)

5 weeks ago

leaghaire predicted No (H$100 at 70%)

5 weeks ago

wyrm predicted No (H$42 at 63%)

5 weeks ago

steveb predicted No (H$100 at 62%)

6 weeks ago

jolleyjoetolley predicted No (H$20 at 62%)

more

5 weeks ago

visionality predicted No (H$500 at 71%)

5 weeks ago

leaghaire predicted No (H$100 at 70%)

5 weeks ago

wyrm predicted No (H$42 at 63%)

5 weeks ago

steveb predicted No (H$100 at 62%)

6 weeks ago

jolleyjoetolley predicted No (H$20 at 62%)

6 weeks ago

biloxibeachboy predicted No (H$20 at 62%)

6 weeks ago

oppugner predicted No (H$50 at 62%)

6 weeks ago

gcawood predicted No (H$77 at 62%)

7 weeks ago

jamesmegawwilson predicted No (H$20 at 62%)

7 weeks ago

redunderthebed predicted Yes (H$50 at 38%)

7 weeks ago

ian_dunham predicted No (H$50 at 62%)

7 weeks ago

bengriffiths predicted No (H$50 at 60%)

8 weeks ago

zeebac predicted No (H$100 at 60%)

8 weeks ago

msknowitall predicted No (H$20 at 59%)

8 weeks ago

ardo_the_ardblaster predicted No (H$100 at 59%)

9 weeks ago

global_ideas predicted No (H$50 at 59%)

9 weeks ago

mona predicted No (H$100 at 59%)

9 weeks ago

cici predicted Yes (H$100 at 41%)

Showing recent public predictions only

less

Comments (12)

  1 lesley

I've edited this question to make it clearer, and included specific settlement details.

Lesley
Hubdub Category Manager

posted 35 weeks ago

  2 randburg

Great question, well-presented, well-edited!

posted 35 weeks ago

  3 tomg

I'd love to date a stone

posted 34 weeks ago

  4 kruijs

yuhu, I've been there:
http://www.vanderkruijs.net/do/de/pic.html?id=1636&sizew=700&sizeh=700#foto

posted 34 weeks ago

  5 lesley

tee hee @ tomg!

posted 34 weeks ago

  6 lesley

I'm going to unsuspend this. The TV programme ("Timewatch" on BBC1) which is behind the dig isn't airing until the "autumn" (no date specified yet) and currently they are examining the evidence they found from the dig. If a news story breaks before the programme airs, then we can settle it then, if not, it will be when the programme airs.

Hope that's ok with everyone.

Lesley.

posted 25 weeks ago

  7 raidersin09

@tom - you don't mean a Rolling Stone I hope heehee (it's not that they're male, it's that they're so bloody olllddddd)

posted 25 weeks ago

  8 lesley

@raidersin09 - naaah, tomg'd just love to date anything...

;-)

posted 25 weeks ago

  9 skipper

I know the feeling!

posted 23 weeks ago

  10 onedave

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7625145.stm

posted 10 weeks ago

  11 ardo_the_ardblaster

This is all theory for facts see this newspaper report, it's much more interesting-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonehenge-builders-had-geometry-skills-to-rival-pythagoras-834313.html

posted 8 weeks ago

  12 orlin

Infernalmachine: Regarding the motivation of voiding the question. I'm feeling obliged to make some clarifications since there are some hints toward myself as a listed question creator which are not exactly this way.
Although I am shown as creator of the question I am not considering myself as such. The initial question which I made many months ago sounded completely different and in my view hasn't nothing to do with the one it is now. It was completely paraphrased soon after creation by the then editor and this significantly changed the meaning and the sense of the question.
The story based on which I requested several months ago a settlement was a newly published study after the question was created and naturally I was not aware of it when created the question.
The relatively high percent for "yes" was based on the initial stories from BBC linked in the background. They represented a high level of expectation that the work will produce positive results. But I repeat, my original question I created was different. It doesn't asked about "Lourdes" and has more general meaning.
Anyway, I am not considering myself as having anything in common with this question and am not feeling responsible about it fate.
Since this case I often thought about the limits within a question can be changed by an editor.

posted 5 weeks ago

Please log in or join to add a comment