> I know you have extreme difficulty in grasping such a simple
> concept, but in science we go about positively proving things.
Do we? I guess you’ve never heard of Popper then, let alone Hume. (The latter for a Scot is shameful.)
> You cannot actually disprove something that has not itself
> actuially been proven. That is a logical fallacy. Do you not
> see this?
No — but then I labour under the burden of having studied logic.
> As such, it is incumbent upon Egyptology to prove that the
> markings in these chambers are genuine--they have to prove the
> positive case. That I can present evidence that blasts holes in
> the 'testimony' of Vyse & Co will do only that. (Yes Stower--we
> know you scream and scream "It's not true, it's not
> true--Creighton's evidence is rubbish" (or words to that
> effect). Your screaming like a big lassie's blouse about the
> evidence I present (of which you have seen only a small amount)
> is no substitute for actual hard evidence, is it? Mouthing off
> that my evidence is "rubbish" won't actually make it so. You
> really have to do better and the best way you can do that is to
> present the positive case i.e. present evidence that these
> markings are authentic.
> Get to it--there's a good laddie.
I’d get some help with those auditory hallucinations.
Very interesting. Funny how you selectively fail to apply this logic to Walter Allen’s “logbook”, which you hold up as an unquestionable default. On this basis and others, I refrain from believing that there is a coherent logic in your method.