> Which makes
> 87882,1090471#msg-1090471&v=t]what you were
> saying[/url] the fallacy of accident, as outlined
I think rather it is showing you aren't interpreting my statements as they are intended.
I'm not suggesting this is necessarily your fault as it always requires a speaker AND listener for communication to break down. However, I did define my terms here and am aware of your definitions so at least some of the breakdown can be laid at your doorstep.
I am not obligated to accept your definitions or use terms as you see fit any more than you are obligated to use my terms. As always the problem is words represent phenomena that lie on continua so those who see definitions as black and white are going to have trouble following arguments that don't use their own definitions.
How ironic that so much of the subject is a language where definitions were set in stone and couldn't vary at all for communication to succeed. Whether you study this language under the umbrella of Egyptology, archaeology, linguistics, metaphysics, mathematics, or logic is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant in our language what you choose to call it so long as the speaker and listener use the same definitions. It was relevant what you called it in ancient language because choice of terms (scientific, colloquial, or vulgar) defined the meaning of an utterance.
> What happened to this?
> “Petrie is the source of much of what is wrong
> with Egyptology. He designed it around 19th
> century science and then it was never updated to
> 20th century science. . . .”
Petrie was a great man who brought science to Egyptology. He apparently put little thought into the future of the field and he jumped to conclusions as all men do. He didn't foresee that he set Egyptology on the wrong path and future Egyptologists wouldn't be able to get off this path or out of the rut he dug.
Nobody is perfect, not even Petrie Himself.
> —the degree is nominally in Egyptology, we find
> that a distinction is made between the
> “Linguistic pathway” and the “Archaeology
> pathway”. The terminology, of no great
> importance in itself, reflects a real difference.
Of course there is a clear distinction in the various groupings of individuals who call themselves "Egyptologists". But all Egyptologists are individuals and there exists no clear distinction between each two individual. I think it's still fair to say that no matter what grouping (or what continua) any individual Egyptologist believes himself to exist that whether he studies the great pyramids or not that he will still believe the great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by changeless sun addled bumpkins. I simply used the more general term (sun addled) because the group of all Egyptologists include numerous outliers, some of whom wouldn't even believe in "stinky feet".
> And again “the 19th century” becomes 100 years
> of stasis.
And still modern science hasn't been systematically applied to Giza since Petrie's early days.
> Neither should we be too sure that doctors today
> are much better:
Fear what doctors believe, not what they know.