Home Page Science Frontiers

No. 52: Jul-Aug 1987

Issue Contents

Other pages

Other Interesting Sites











The calico debate, plus a little editorializing

Passions run higher in archeology than in most fields of scientific endeavor. Favored hypotheses mesmerize some, despite contradictory data and cogent arguments. In this respect, much science verges on religion.

The foregoing "kernel of real truth" was occasioned by letters written to Science News in response to B. Bower's article on the probability of human artifacts -- as old as 100,000 years -- having been found at the Calico site in California. (See SF#51.)

First, J.G. Duvall, III, attacked Bower's article, asserting that the human origin of the Calico "artifacts" had long ago been shown to be untenable. For a reference, he cited an article by himself and W.T. Venner in the Journal of Field Archaeology. Duvall's major point was that the Calico "tools" did not resemble proven Paleoindian tools.

Responding to Duvall, G.F. Carter first pointed out that the Duvall-Venner paper was "almost instantly shown to be erroneous" by L.W. Patterson in the pages of the very same journal. As for the differences in artifacts, Carter asked why one should expect 12,000-year-old Paleoindian artifacts to look like 200,000-year-old artifacts from an entirely different culture. (Duvall, James G., III; "Calico Revisited," Science News, 131:227, 1987. Carter, George F.; "Calico Defended," Science News, 131:339, 1987.)

Comment. We don't really know whether or not the Calico "artifacts" were really made by humans 200,000 years ago. No one really does! One may opine or theorize, and that's it. The really annoying aspect of the Calico business is the tendency of scientists to make absolute statements in the face of contradictory evidence. This desire for certainty extends to all of science. Reviewers of our books often remark that such-and-such an anomaly was explained long ago, despite the many references to contradictory facts and well-founded minority opinions. So anxious are some scientists to stifle dissent that one geologist recently asserted that continental drift was now so well-proven that no more contradictory data should be published!

From Science Frontiers #52, JUL-AUG 1987. 1987-2000 William R. Corliss

Science Frontiers Sourcebook Project Reviewed in:


  • "A sourcebook of unexplained phenomena is therefore a valuable addition to a collection of scientific literature. William R. Corliss has provided this in the past with his source books of scientific anomalies in several subjects, and now he has provided it for astronomy. He has done an excellent job of collecting and editing a large amount of material, taken in part from scientific journals and in part from scientific reporting in the popular or semi-scientific press." -- "The Mysterious Universe: A Handbook of Astronomical Anomalies", reviwed by Thomas Gold, Cornell University, in Icarus, vol.41, 1980

  • "An interesting, systematic presentation of unusual weather [..] This book is recommended for a general audience" --"Corliss, William R., Tornados, Dark Days, Anomalous Precipitation, and Related Weather Phenomena, Sourcebook Project, 1983.", revieweed in Choice, September 1983
  • "..the science is necessarily somewhat speculative, but Corliss's symthesis is based on reputable sources." -- "Corliss, William R. (Compiler). Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous Phenomena" reviwed by Joseph M. Moran, Univ. of Wisconsin in Science Books and Films, Sep/Oct 1983

  • "Before opening the book, I set certain standards that a volume which treads into dangerous grounds grounds like this must meet. The author scrupulously met, or even exceeded those standards. Each phenomenon is exhaustively documented, with references to scientific journals [..] and extensive quotations" -- "Book Review: The moon and planets: a catalog of astronomical anomalies", The Sourcebook Project, 1985., Corliss, W. R., Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 81, no. 1 (1987), p. 24., 02/1987