A response to a
comment by Paul Barford
Raimund Karl and Katharina
Möller
In a series of reactions on his blog (see here
and here),
Paul Barford (and a commentator)
have questioned the results our study “An
empirical examination of metal detecting”. Yet, apparently, they both have seriously
misunderstood the point of our paper. Much like Sam Hardy (see “Estimating
numbers?”) they seem to not understand the difference between comparing
data of the same kind for the purpose of deductive hypothesis-testing and
'estimating' numbers of metal detectorists based on different kinds of data;
and why such hypothesis-testing is needed for coming up with better solutions
for regulating metal detecting than archaeology, as a profession in general,
seems to have come up with as of yet.
Thus, also as further explanation, we would like, in the
following, to respond to these comments. Not that we believe it will help Paul
Barford, since it is our feeling that he has long dug himself into too deep a
hole to be able to get out again; or even see the need to stop shovelling.
Rather, it hopefully will allow somewhat more open-minded readers to better
understand why our results, and the conclusions we have drawn and actions we
have taken based on them, are both helpful and suitable to move forward the
debate on how to best regulate metal detecting; and possibly even to find more
effective solutions for actually doing so.
