> you cite Metaphysics whenever you have no cogent
No, whenever we get to the heart of why one can't see another way to see it involves metaphysical principles so the word often arises. All people always make perfect sense in terms of their premises so a modern language speakers real job is to determine these premises. You, on the other hand, are looking for all the ways in which I am wrong. You're seeking confusion, misunderstanding, and ignorance instead of trying to understand what I'm saying. When I read your statements I know in advance you're "100%" correct in terms of your premises. I challenge peoples' premises frequently but then often the premises at the heart of their scientific beliefs are faulty metaphysics.
I fear this is typical with Egyptologists. As a rule they simply don't understand what science is or how it works so naturally I spend a lot of time on this subject. All science was invented to make prediction. Nature invented ancient science to give animals and ancient man a fighting chance of survival by making predictions and then man invented modern science to give us a better chance of survival by making predictions. These two metaphysics are completely and utterly different but in neither case (and God knows in no case) is reality ever determined by consensus. No committee ever sat down and decided physical law, logic, reality, or made a good prediction. Consensus is utterly meaningless and simply reflects the opinion of the day.
Think of it this way; when something isn't known no amount of consensus in the world will make it known and the human race even in aggregate knows virtually nothing at all. Every time an Egyptologist cites some other Egyptologist he is merely confirming his ignorance and reliance on other peoples' ideas.
This isn't to say Egyptologists are stupid, merely that they are ignorant and using improper methodology and the proper words for this is it is the result of poor understanding of metaphysics. Without understanding metaphysics no one can know what he knows.