[meteorite-list] Claimed pairings

[Jeff Grossman]

Even though pairing statements in the literature are not always 
scrutinized carefully, they should always be attributed to the person 
who has made the claim (if not, they are worthless).  These can be 
evaluated based on the reputation of the person involved.  Moreover, you 
can write to the person and ask for the evidence upon which the claim 
was based.  So, it's not like all pairing statements are worthless.  It 
just may take effort to evaluate them (which is why the Nomenclature 
Committee does not take on this job... it's hard!).

I would say that you can write a few general rules for evaluating claims 
if you are a non-expert:

1) The rarer the type of material, the more likely published claims of 
pairing are to be right.
2) Claims backed up by chemical and isotopic evidence are better than 
claims backed only by mineralogical data, which in turn are better than 
claims based only on visual inspection.
3) Claims backed by geographic data are better than those which are not.

I would also say that claims in peer-reviewed scientific papers may not 
be better than those in the Bulletin or abstracts, unless the paper is 
directly concerned with the topic of pairing.  Casual pairing statements 
in papers may not have received much attention from reviewers.

So the weakest claims are made by collectors who buy two NWA ordinary 
chondrites and think they look the same.

Jeff


On 2010-06-19 3:49 PM, Bob Loeffler wrote:
>> Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the head argues against
>>      
> you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything less is NOT science.
>
> I agree with Richard.  The police, district attorney and medical examiner
> will never assume (at least in the US) that the bullet in the head killed
> the person.  An autopsy will always be required because this usually
> indicates foul play (aka murder).  How many times have we seen that the
> bullet didn't kill the person?  Lots of times.  Maybe that was done to throw
> the authorities off from the real cause, like slow poisoning over a 6-month
> period by a pissed off wife.   :-)
>
> If something doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny (or never even tested),
> then it's just more BS and somebody will get away with murder (or fraud in
> the case of meteorite buying/selling).
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> Kowalski
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:38 PM
> To: meteorite list
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Claimed pairings
>
> Carl,
>
> I did not refer to any particular pairing claim.
>
> Your analogy about finding a body with a bullet in the head argues against
> you. Yes, of course you wait for the autopsy. Anything less is NOT science.
>
> Believe what and who you want, but that doesn't make it scientific fact.
>
> Claiming a pairing, just because material if found near by is not science
> either. Period.
>
> The meteorite market is very thin and is based on trust. For my money
> (literally) I want legitimate scientific proof to stand with the meteorites
> in my collection. Third party emails carry no weight whatsoever.
>
> Have a pairing? Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper proving your
> claim. Pretty simple and straight forward.
>
> To reiterate a quote from the 1980's  "Trust, but verify."
> I'll add that if you can't verify, there is no reason to trust.
>
> Show me the lab results that show the claimed paired material is EXACTLY the
> same as the original and I'll gladly plunk down my hard earned funds.
>
> This is a much greater problem than a single claim too. If the trust is lost
> that the material, any material, might not be what is claimed, I'm certainly
> not going to be buying it, or any more meteorites in the future. I mentioned
> other collectibles that hold my interest in a post yesterday. I can just as
> easily spend my money buying those items as I can meteorites. If you want to
> see the collectible meteorite market collapse, because all trust in the
> material being exactly what it is claimed to be with no ambiguity, go ahead
> and allow scientifically unsubstantiated claims continue unabated.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kowalski
> Full Moon Photography
> IMCA #1081
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>    


-- 
Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman       phone: (703) 648-6184
US Geological Survey          fax:   (703) 648-6383
954 National Center
Reston, VA 20192, USA