> Kate Spence has proved nothing. However, because she has said
> the same as Robert Bauval - but said it in Nature - she is
> hailed a hero by academia. And Dr Conspiracy wonders why the
> cry of 'Elitist' goes up. Ancient history is not life or
> death for me, it is an interest, nothing more. If I need
> legal advice I do indeed go to a legal expert because the law
> is absolute (ass that it is). The truth in law is black and
> white. The medical analogy is a little more of a grey area.
> If I get an abdominal pain I may see a medical doctor, or I
> may seek alternative advice, some of which is now becoming
> more and more accepted by the medical profession (whether
> these alternative theories have been peer-reviewed or not).
> However, ancient history is (in my opinion) mostly conjecture
> and supposition. Artefacts/ ancient documents constituting
> the only evidence. Evidence from which anyone can extrapolate
> the 'truth' about what happened, whether scholar or
> down-trodden, little man journalist. I'm only interested in
> peoples theories - they can have proof, evidence, supposition
> or nothing at all. I'll still make my own mind up BECAUSE I
> have an open mind.
That's it. There're no grey areas in the law, which is absolute. That's why there are no lawyers to guide us through it. We can all just go into court and represent ourselves, since the law is so cut-and-dried. (I *really* hope you don't actually believe any of this.) And ancient history is all conjecture and opinion. No facts there, no evidence required. Just make up some ideas and you're off. All opinions in this area are equal. We really should just fire all those ancient historians in their universities, who have no more authority than anyone who can come up with a nice-looking conjecture. Bryan, is there a specific period of history when the evidence does kick in and raw conjecture is out? When do you consider "history" proper to start? I presume the Middle Ages are also all a matter of conjecture and opinion -- not much more evidence there than in ancient history, in fact less in many cases. Was Alfred the Great an alien? Let's keep an open mind on that one. His very existence is only a conjecture anyway. Right?
> The point is, Robert Bauval did write his 'idea', as Dr.C
> calls it, in a 'proper' manner, on more than one occasion,
> followed by a mention in his best-selling popular press Orion
> Mystery. He was ignored by academia (though applauded by Joe
> Public). Kate Spence writes the same thing once- and Hey
> Presto, because her peers now decide they like the idea, it's
> the truth.
Since you're so open-minded and keen on facts, I presume you have checked with the editors of "Nature" to see whether Kate Spence cited Bauval in her original submission? She may have and been advised to drop it. You're not just accepting what is claimed here on this site at face value without checking any of the facts, are you? Open-minds are not spoon fed their opinions, are they?
> It certainly looks to me like someone didn't like the idea of
> an engineer cracking an egyptological mystery.
Here's the conspiracy again. Can't have outsiders proving anything (which they can't since ancient hsitory is just conjecture anyway). Call CSICOP!
> I'm not suggesting for a minute that the whole of academia is
> run by some shadowy cabal of elite puppet-masters
> 'protecting' the plebs from knowledge of earth-shattering
> truths, I just wish that theories, ideas if you like, can be
> read, contemplated and moved forward without them having to
> be assessed on their validity by a select few. Access to
> scholarly works is limited, access to popular press isn't. As
> I asked earlier - paper for the academics or book for the
> people - who are we to say which has more validity?
But then, no, it's gone! There is no conspiracy after all. Just unfairness in publication policies. It seems we now have a Committee of Truth in ancient history, as opposed to ideas to be checked against evidence. Validation is so tedious and inconvenient anyway. Let's just keep the ideas going forward, regardless of plausibility, evidence, or logic. But, as I recall, there's no point in validation at all, since ancient history is all a matter of opinion.
Excuse me if I withdraw confused as to where you stand.