It's not "dogma" if it's true and factual. For example if you hold a rock in your hand, the fact that it is there is not subject to "belief." It simply is. It is not dogmatic to say that it exists. If scientific investigation factually dates the Sphinx to an age prior to the 4th Dynasty, it is not dogmatic to say so. It IS dogmatic to continue to suggest otherwise.
By informal fallacies I take that to mean something like the concept of a "confabulation fallacy" of which an example would be using the Dream Stele as "documentary" proof that Khafre built the Sphinx in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary and even in spite of other more clear "documentary" evidence (the "Inventory Stele") to the contrary? Actually it could also be labeled as an "Invincible Ignorance" fallacy. It can be difficult to distinguish between the two at times.
As it concerns Dr. Hawass I am of two minds. One is that you'll have to admit that Zahi has never met a camera that he didn't like. His pompous, sometimes...make that many times, outrageous claims (the face of Mark Antony comes to mind), his comic "Raiders of the Lost Ark" persona and his churlish behaviour towards any that disagree or perturb him make him a very hard man to like. He is, at times, a buffoon looking for a Discovery Channel tv show to star in. His demotion was well deserved in my opinion. On the other hand, it is doubtful that there is anyone who has done more to popularize interest in the pyramids and ancient Egypt than he has. Is it coincidental that Egypt has benefited from his fame? I think you would find strong arguments that support all that he has achieved and equally strong arguments that decry his dictator-like style and despotic rule of the S.C.A. In the end, history will be his ultimate judge....as for me...I just don't like the crude bastard. Go figure!
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"....Mark Twain
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Dec-16 20:40 by DocKnowles.