> Ori is stating that the story was fabricated.
> He has given his reasons for the use of the word "fabricated".
> Fabricated then by the higher standards of today
> and for whatever reason.
> The bar is constantly being raised and Egyptology
> must respond accordingly.
> As do all progressive disciplines.
> Yesterday's truth is not necessarily today's truth.
> It is not about the history of Egyptology, It's
> about the history of humanity.
Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with Audrey and Jon (and no, we have not conspired or even consulted each other on our perspectives of Reisner, the cartouche, Vyse, or Creighton.
Avry's fascinating perspective is the poster child of how many of the major tenets of Egyptology got into the mess they're in today. Such a flippant attitude that hand waves the obsolete practices of the past (some of them still embraced in the present) is a clear demonstration of the inertia to update standards in the field.
To address some of Avry's concerns:
- "Fabrication, made it up, who cares"
Apparently, Thanos, Stower, and Avry care. A lot. Or else they wouldn't be instigating so many volleys about it after my first mentioning it as an example of low standards.
"This 'example' is indicative of a 'poor standard'? From our point of view - with new information - yes, but not from_his_point of view"
And I've never disagreed with that (other than a single bad hair day back in February). I've repeated several times that I don't blame him at all. All he did was apply the standard of his day, a standard used by many to draw unfounded conclusions that are still accepted as fact today. He's not to blame, the discipline is to blame. Sure I might seem like I'm blaming and flaming Reisner, but that's just my frustration bubbling up and getting misinterpreted as being directed at Reisner. Sure it gets me upset when I realize how misguided we have all been by such fabricated stories that the humanities have allowed to run rampant. And it's not hard to lose oneself momentarily in a 'heat of battle' debate with such staunch idealogues as we see here at GHMB. And even though I did stray for a moment in Feb., I immediately retracted the comment and exonerated Reisner from the slur that several here have been trying to accuse me of.
"Why is this a relevant example"
- 1. This is but one example of very low standards used in the field. It's not limitied to Reisner or G7000x. It is a widespread phenomenon. It was used to show that the unfounded credibility that has been imbued into the Vyse narrative despite the lack of evidence of the actual events that happened is not an isolated event. Even the Vyse and Reisner apologists have acknowledged that such behavior was widespread. And sure enough, similar to the fabrications in the Reisner narrative, there is zero direct evidence that any sarcophagus was in that crate, and there is zero direct evidence that the crate was on the Beatrice when it left Alexandria. It's all based on what might possibly have happened as told in the purely speculative narrative that has yet to be substantiated (if anything, the new analysis being probed in these discussions make the narrative even less plausible, not more so).
2. It's relevant because what some people are excoriating Scott for in these recent discussions is really not that much different from the fabricated narrative from Reisner that they so hostilely support. In other words, Scott is simply assessing the current physical evidence and constructing a story about the events that might have happened to account for that evidence. Is Scott's situation the same as Reisner's? Of course not; Reisner was a world-recognized mainstream Egyptologist with all credibility that goes with that stature. Scott is an independent armchair investigator who's far from mainstream and must deal with his far less field experience compared to Reisner as well as all of the inertia implied by such a challenge to mainstream. Also, at least parts of Reisner's narrative have been shown to be fabricated because they're now believed to be untrue and not based on fact. Scott's narrative remains to be proven wrong. Do the differences in Scott's and Reisner's respective narrative justify the deification of Reisner and the demonization of Scott? Absolutely not.
"It is a very common practice for individuals who subliminaly recognize they've lost an argument, and in order to keep the 'narrative' going the datapoints just keep jumping all over the map."
I know you're not referring to me since in my 118 posts that mention Reisner, 117 of them are rock steady in their consistency. And the one time I drifted, I immediately recognized and retracted it. On the other hand, the traditionalists here are the ones keeping this "narrative going" as they continue "jumping all over the map" searching for new ways to impose their position. I mentioned Reisner once at the beginning of the thread to exemplify the low standard, but they keep harping on all different ways to discredit it. I urge Avry to go back and reread if he missed that phenomenon. First they try to intimidate me by making fun of my "low standard" claim. Then they switch gears and acknowledge that it was indeed a low standard and then try to justify the low standard by claiming it was widespread across the discipline so why single out Reisner (as if that somehow makes the low standard any more acceptable). Then they think they can visit my intentions by trying to divine the hidden motives behind my words rather than taking the words at face value on their own merit within the context they're used. And now they've backed into the corner of relying on technical nuances to split hairs in the differences in word definitions between dictionaries (a common occurence) as a way to discredit the messenger instead of looking at the big picture of what the sentences actually say. In fact, only now is Avry acknowledging that it was indeed a low standard but that the issue just isn't that relevant or important. So I'm not the one who's "lost an argument here", or who kept the "narrative going", or who "jumped all over the map". I'm the one plowing through this volley very consistently and undeterred.
"I implore you to stop this nonsense. Please."
I agree this is nonsense but Avry misdirected his comment since I'm not the one dragging it out, his current post being an example since he asked me questions that I feel compelled to answer. If no one had challenged me when I initially mentioned low standard applied by Reisner (which was indeed a low standard by any measure), none of this "nonsense" would be persisting in the first place. Avry, himself, just acknowledged that it was indeed a low standard, and yet he still hasn't intervened with the Reisner apologists to cease their relentless defense of Reisner's narrative.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06-Jun-16 15:58 by Origyptian.