Proponents of myths and hoaxes use several types of methods cited by Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer as markings of unscientific research and flawed reasoning. These include: irrefutable hypothesis, argument by authority, appeal to myth, shifting the burden of proof, grab-bag approach, argument for spurious similarity, and the idea that heresy does not equal correctness. Furthermore, scientists use tools such as Occam's razor for making sense out of outrageous claims. I have also included some excellent observations made by Kenneth Feder, author of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries.
One example of how a writer can twist meanings according to their liking is seen in the examination of the word 'opdagelse'. The word roughly translates to discovery, and it has been used to refute the validity of the stone according to experts because the word does not appear in the Swedish language until centuries after the rune was supposedly written. In his examination of this word, Hall claims that even though the word 'voyage of discovery' did not appear in the Swedish Middle Ages, it did appear in the Icelandic sagas (Hall 14). This assumption demonstrates the use of pseudo-science in a number of aspects. First and foremost, it represents inaccurate data which conflicts with other theories presented by Hall. Icelandic is a different language than Swedish, and if 'opdagelse' was a word in Icelandic in the 14th century, then the crew of this voyage must have included people who spoke Icelandic. Thus we have a rune-stone written in part Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic which contradicts what he and other proponents argue, that the stone is a hybrid language of Swedish and Norwegian. Furthermore, even if the word did appear in Icelandic sagas, there is no way to refute this claim because Icelandic sagas were passed on by word of mouth, never written. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that this was indeed a word used in the Icelandic sagas. Using something that is impossible to prove is an example of pseudo-science called the irrefutable hypothesis (Radner 39). Finally, the author is making a jump, or assumption, that since Icelandic and Swedish are related languages, and if the word opdagelse appeared in Icelandic, then it must have appeared in Swedish. This is an example of false reasoning, or trying to connect two things that aren't necessarily connected.
Furthermore, Hall isn't listening to what other experts in runeology have to say about the subject. Instead, Hall finds people in different disciplines to prove his point; people such as Konstantin Reichardt, a professor of Germanic languages at Yale. Reichardt goes on to say, "Every word in the Kensington inscription except opdagelse has been proved to have been used in Scandinavia in the fourteenth century, and I am willing to take opdagelse on faith" (Hall 15). Unfortunately, Herr Reichardt, science is not about taking hypotheses on faith. Another example of argument by authority is made when Hagen, a scholar in Icelandic studies, makes an interpretation of the rune (Pohl 217).
Another mark of pseudo-science is called appeal to myth. In this example, one starts with a myth from ancient times, takes them as actual reports, and comes up with a hypothesis that explains the events by positing special conditions that pertained then, but no longer pertain today (Radner 38). An example of this related to the Kensington stone pertains to the myth surrounding a Native American tribe called the Mandan Indians. Some of these indigenous people of North Dakota were said to have fair skin, light hair, and blue eyes. Holand claims that this could have resulted from the miscegenation of Vikings and the Native Americans during the alleged Viking voyage through Minnesota. This assumption therefore adds more support for the theory of the Kensington stone.
Shifting the burden of proof to the experts is another technique used by pseudo-scientists. Regarding the dative form of the Swedish word 'deno', Hall provides an example of where the person making an extraordinary claim shifts the burden of proof to the experts. He states, "Until conclusive evidence that someone in the Kensington area in the 1890's knew the specific form of 'deno' as a dative can be adduced, all assertions that the inscription is a forgery must be considered unproven" (Hall 19). Since everyone in the Kensington area from the 1890's is now dead, this is also an example of an irrefutable hypothesis.
The grab bag approach is another mark of pseudo-science often employed by the proponents of the Kensington stone. In this approach, an overwhelming amount of evidence makes up for any deficiency in the quality of individual pieces of evidence. As Radner states, "the point of the exercise is to wear you down with sheer quantity of evidence so you will stop the silly objections and admit that something is there" (Radner 39). Such an approach is used when identifying all the artifacts, mooring stones, and rune stones associated with the Vikings. Rune-stones have been found all over the US according to some believers. Frederick J. Pohl, a supporter of the Kensinton stone, describes runes in West Virginia, among the Indians at Cape Cod, among the Mandan Native Americans in North Dakota, along the coast of Maine, and he believed a Viking named Karlsefni explored rivers along the eastern seaboard and discovered the appalachian mountains (Pohl 202). The Heavener Rune-stone is another such stone often mentioned in connection with the Kensington stone. Similar mysteries surround the appearance of this stone, yet no explanation has been given to explain the possible motive Vikings would have in voyaging through Oklahoma where the stone is located.
Using real science as a background to support a false hypothesis is an example of arguing for spurious similarity. Proponents of the Kensington stone use this technique when describing the circumstances surrounding the claims made on the stone. For example, the inscription claims that the stone was set on an island. Based on geological surveys of the area, proponent claim that the marshy surroundings of the stone's origin were at the time of the inscription, areas of water, and thus the stone found beneath the hill of Ohman's farm was indeed an island.
One of Shermer's warning signs for predicting pseudo-science is the idea that heresy does not equal correctness. According to nineteenth century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, "All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." This is a rationalization used by those who were rejected to demonstrate that they may be right, because others were ridiculed and then proven correct. They use Copernicus and the Wright brothers as example of people who were once ridiculed an then proven correct. Hagen, a scholar of Icelandic studies, uses this approach in defending the authenticity of the stone. Regarding the skepticism surrounding the translation he says, "A future generation of scholars will find it hard to understand how an older one could have been so blind" (Pohl 217). Blind to what? Being ridiculed like Copernicus does not mean that these claims are correct.
Occam's razor tells us that when confronted with two hypothesis that explain data equally well, choose the simpler or more reasonable hypothesis. For example, is it easier to explain that the stone is a hoax or that the Vikings did in fact voyage to Minnesota in the 13th century leaving only an inacurate rune-stone as evidence of their arrival. Furthermore, if the stone were genuine, it would mean that the Viking era of exploration lasted centuries longer than historians expected. Again, the question arises where is the proof. This is just one incidence in what should be many if the Viking era indeed lasted several centuries longer.
Some important observations are made by Kenneth Feder regarding two cultures coming into contact with one another. As Feder states "foreign visitors bring with them a recognizable, foreign material culture. Their unique and alien material culture represents, in fact, a signature of their presence, and similar evidence should be found in any other case where such a presence is to be verified" (Feder 91). There is no other evidence that the Vikings made it to Minnesota, Oklahoma, or anywhere else in between. If the Vikings did make it to Minnesota, other evidence of their existence should have been noted.
Feder also notes that most of the supposed Viking artifacts found in North America are instead a reflection of hoaxes and misinterpretations born of ethnic pride. Furthermore, a map showing the distribution of alleged Viking artifacts corresponds well with the distribution of historical Scandinavian settlements of the United States (Feder 114).