> Origyptian wrote:
> > I don't know what evidence you are referring to as "valid". I'm
> > only looking for evidence that eliminates all but one
> > hypothesis in order to render it "indisputable". As of this
> > moment, no such evidence has been presented.
> > I honestly don't know what you're complaining about. We are all
> > free to assess the evidence presented in these discussions
> > however we see fit according to our own standards of proof or
> > wishful thinking. That's not at all the problem here.
> Frankly, I think your standard of proof is too high but then it
> helps compensate for those whose standard of proof is too low.
> I'm interested in knowing what method you used to arrive at
> your own hypotheses. If not a distinct method then a more
> general category would be interesting to know. I suppose
> ultimately everyone's method comes down to deduction or
> intuition, though (or some combination).
> It's funny that you believe inb an ancient civilization and I
> believe the ancient civilization was everywhere we look and
> find people. All ancient people were civilized and they only
> seem like stumble footed bumpkins to us because we are
> projecting our own weaknesses.
My concept of a hypothesis is that it is typically a slowly developing, living & breathing construct. The objective is that with each observation, each physical object, each new logical twist, we build our hypothesis from the ground up. The more evidence we collect, the stronger the "true" hypothesis becomes and the more likely it is that other alternative (and false) hypotheses can be ruled out according to unreconcilable contradictions in the evidence. Physical evidence trumps circumstantial and historical reports. Physical evidence can certainly be misinterpreted, but it never lies. The same cannot be said for historical reports.
In point of fact, the issue here is not whether someone has a valid, well thought-out, or even hairbrain hypothesis -- someone can insist that Earth was built by aliens using geological building materials and then constructed mankind from a set of DNA subroutines, and that would be a fun hypothesis to read about.
Rather, the problem is that certain people here claim that only their claim is true, that it is indisputable, and that no one had better dare take issue with it by pointing out the contradictions in the physical evidence or the ambiguities in the evidence they are claiming makes their hypothesis so bulletproof, not to mention the insults, wrath, and wasted bandwidth they consume complaining about it.
To call something "indisputable" and thereby summarily hand wave anyone else's interpretation of the same evidence cannot be taken lightly. It requires an enormous burden of proof. You are well aware of this because the early explorers have done the exact same thing and jumped to the same "indisputable" conclusions regarding the tomb and ramp hypotheses as well as the dynastic timeline, and look how many years have been wasted in the resulting ideological quagmire. Things are changing rapidly, however, thanks to the instant access of information through the internet along with the fact that we are now allowed to consider that the Bishop Ussher's Earth might actually be older than 6000 years...
Post Edited (06-Jul-15 20:49)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?