IAS Argument is Inconsistent

To the Editor:

Mr. Goddard, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study, has stated that there has been archeological studies performed already on the battlefield. He further says that he is willing to put an archeological protocol in place to save the artifacts. Mr. Goddard has unfortunately made a paradoxical conclusion; Claiming that the archeological artifacts have importance (so much so he would save them) but that the land has little historical importance. They are either both important or both unimportant. By acknowledging that the archeological artifacts have a special value to society and should not be lost then he must also agree that the land has historical significance. The two go hand in hand, indivisible, otherwise he must state that neither the artifacts or the land are important.

I offer this: in order to develop the IAS housing, the IAS would have to sacrifice something of great scientific importance to them, something like the Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. They will have to work without its insights, without its mathematical equations and without any of the theories that are built upon Einstein’s ideas. I presume this would cause a major digression in the world of particle physics and physics in general. Consider the loss to a historians work, a countries traditions, a peoples heritage, before you build on the land. In the same way you would suffer from the loss of Special Relativity others suffer from the loss of this battlefield.

Please do not build on the Princeton Battlefield

Respectfully,
Brian J Kovacs
Princeton Battlefield Society
Philadelphia resident