R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Philip,
> Please try to defer your recalcitrant overview and understanding.

Your hostility is interesting, Avry. But ok, here's my reply.

You call it recalcitrant; I call it clarification. To what authority here do you expect me to defer? And before you direct me to people who have studied this or that for hundreds of years, allow me to interject "practice makes permanent, not perfect".



> Your micromanagement and unnecessary belaborement
> of this non-Reisner issue is a waste of time.

Only "unnecessary belaborement" if you're not interested in the details of what Reisner said. In which case you certainly are free to ignore the post. Otherwise, Thanos made a point in his reply to me that I disagreed with and so I replied to it accordingly. Not sure why that should stir up ire from you, but so be it.



> To summarize your view, let's just get to the point, shall we?
> You think Reisner is a charlatan,

Where did I say that?



> and your using this as a support to say if he is one so must Vyse be

I never said that. Vyse's narrative has its own problems that are unrelated to Reisner. Reisner is just another example of the lower standards at play back then.



> or moreso, so is every Egyptologist.

I never said that, either. I've stated several times that I truly beleive Reisner's, Engelbach's, and Stocks' motives were pure. They simply proceeded with far lower standards of proof than we apply today in the quantitative sciences. Meanwhile, where did I say that "every Egyptologist" is a charlatan?



> So now that Vyse is a charlatan by this association you
> conclude the cartouche is a fake.

And I never said that. What is it with you? Vyse is a charlatan if the cartouche turns out to be fake, not the other way around.

Judging from your simplistic and incorrect assessment, you clearly have ignored the many times I've posted the hard, physical evidence that casts a reasonable doubt on Vyse's narrative just as you seem to have ignored my acknowledgement that I did, in fact, fully embrace Vyse's narrative as fact for years until I learned more about the contradictions in, and the lack of supporting evidence for, that narrative.

Does the evidence prove Vyse's discovery was a fraud? Of course not, and I don't recall ever saying it did. But does that evidence raise a reasonable doubt in the narrative. Absolutely, if for no other reason than the complete lack of evidence that's needed in order to corroborate many of the crucial details of that narrative.



> I am trying to find a complimentary word to
> describe your argument, however I am sorry to
> report the only one I can come up with is 'idiocy'.

Who among us is surprised by that traditionalist sentiment?



> Your inability to recognize a false front for
> substatiating a context is beguiling.

That's an interesting comment from someone who subscribes to the funerary context as being the motive for the construction of the OK pyramids.



> Reisner made
> an error. It got updated. It may get updated
> again. That's science. More impotantly this whole
> line of debate is a useless foundation to butress
> a faked cartouche. The relevance of the
> association is utterly void.

That may be what you think this debate is about, but to me, the entire Vyse episode is a textbook example of the sorely low standards in place back then. Even traditionalists don't deny that certain methods used by a person of status and power back then would not be acceptable by today's standards. Rather, their defense of Vyse et al. is simply that we shouldn't single him out since that kind of behavior apparently ran rampant in his day.

Whether you want to talk about Reisner, Vyse, Herodotus, Stocks, etc., the standards they applied to data collection, analysis, and reporting was very often incomplete, illogical, based on speculation and hearsay, contradicted by other evidence, and wrong. What you keep failing to realize is that "science" has been sorely ignored by much of traditional Egyptology, and many of the tenets that are still embraced today were established back when the standards were so low that if the story simply made sense it was accepted as fact, if it was stated by a self-proclaimed historian it was accepted as fact, and if it was the only explanation anyone could think of it was accepted as fact. Of course, more and more Egyptologists are starting to realize that maybe huge construction ramps weren't used after all, and that on second thought maybe G1 didn't really house a physical corpse but was the venue for the ka/ba, and that maybe the timeline really does need at least a small tweak here and there. But there is tremendous inertia (your current post being one example) and many more adjustments certainly will be made as time goes by.

Scientific methods have come a long way in the past 150 years, Avry. You can continue with your name calling and insults, but it's not going to change the momentum to apply modern standards of scrutiny to those old and often obsolete notions. The traditional dynastic timeline with its Intermediate Periods and almost complete lack of consideration of engineering and physics had its shot for centuries and it's starting to show its rust.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to get so hostile when you read posts from me. If you have evidence that contradicts my own perspective, I'm all ears. Meanwhile, resorting to insults and sarcasm in lieu of evidence might be your idea of "science", but I subscribe to a different definition than you.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jun-16 22:16 by Origyptian.