> More Thanos signature charm.
I have my moments.
> Yes, I still have my opinion because despite all
> that has been said, it still is not conclusive.
Does Lehner or anyone else ever state or imply Reisner was trying to "deceive" anyone?
> To say that Reisner wasn't trying to "deceive"
> anyone implies that he didn't realize how
> baselessly dogmatic his statements were.
He did not nor did any antiquarians of the 19th and early 20th century. As I said:
Reisner offered a theory which was clearly based on ample conjecture and it was the fault of others it was ever passed off as "fact".
The "conjecture" is clear to anyone who has a grasp of not only the known facts even in his day, but also the intellectual verisimilitude trope of the era which it was still commonplace to present one's opinions as if they were fact. See E. Wallis Budge.
Imagine Col Mustard in the study professing with certitude despite not knowing all the facts it was indeed Ms Scarlett who killed Mr Green in the bedroom with a lead pipe.
Like I also said:
Regardless, it was the norm amongst antiquarians of the day, and really expected of them, to offer such "hypotheticals", "stories" if you will, to create a narrative around such discoveries which as we can see still happens in the field today.
> And while
> that's a possibility, it only means that he would
> then be guilty of lacking objectivity in reporting
> the results of his investigation.
He was quite objective in reporting the results of his investigation, where it goes awry is when he tries to explain what it all means by way of his own intellect which is where we are able to separate fact from his conjecture. Reisner was not out to "deceive" anyone but rather used the weight of his expertise to create an educated yarn as was common in the day to fill in the gaps of these discoveries which unfortunately continues little different today with equally disastrous results. These people are not out to "deceive" anyone but rather is a problem systemic to fields that given the incomplete nature of the information more often than not relies on interpretation.
> And that leads
> us back to it being another example of the far
> lower standards of proof that were tolerated in
> reporting facts vs. speculation back then.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just because Reisner's theory did not pan out under closer scrutiny or further discovery of evidence to support it does not mean therefore everything is "all wrong" opening the door to whatever anyone can imagine. You are trying use one meaningless example to throw the "baby out with the bathwater" which otherwise does not apply at large.