> It might come as a surprise to many here but for
> the most part I don't care How
> My interest is that of an independent cultural
How it is that cultural anthropologists are not obligated to understand "how". For example, if it's not clear how they did it, then how is it clear they did it?
> 1. I learn more about us by learning about them
> 2. I learn more about us by observing what kind of
> person is apparently predisposed to not believing
> that Man can be and has been greater than the sum
> of his parts.
> I observe that you have little faith your fellow
> man and an apparent distrust of academics.
Well, unfortunately for some, there's not much room for "faith" in the quantitative science like physics and engineering.
No data or testing is required for "faith". Christian traditionalists had "faith" that the earth was only 6000 years old. Not such as prevalent a notion as it was many years ago.
For a long time, the humanities had "faith" that the Roman Empire was responsible for the megaliths at Baalbek. Newer standards of proof are revealing that to be an increasingly tenuous attribution.
I'm not sure what "faith in your fellow man" you could be referring to in this discussion. We are talking about the origin of pyramids. They are in the physical world and require reconciliation, not faith. They must be accounted for and not just believed in. They must fit into the physics of time, energy, mass, forces, and dimension, not just fit into a self-consistent narrative.
If you don't care about "how", then why are you bothering to volley with those who do? Are you suggesting that the "how" is not an important aspect of the development of such technology?
I sincerely don't understand your perspective here regarding the OP and many other aspects of your debate with ancient engineering enigmas in these discussions if you really don't care how any of it was done.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06-Feb-17 20:03 by Origyptian.