Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > OCaptain Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Origyptian Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > OCaptain Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > If it can't be observed and
> > > > > measured in some way,
> > > > > > then it can't be entered into
> > > evidence
> > > > > for any theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > This reminds me of the "pyramids were
> > > > designed
> > > > > to be tombs" hypothesis:
> > > > >
> > > > > It can be observed: Look for
> > physical
> > > > > evidence of previously unbreached
> pyramids.
> > > > > It can be measured: Number of
> > "tombs"
> > > > found
> > > > > = 0.
> > > > > And therefore, it can be entered into
> > > > > evidence: No evidence that
> pyramids
> > > were
> > > > > initially tombs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, Ori, but passing your personal
> muster
> > is
> > > a
> > > > very different challenge than standards of
> > > > evidence.
> > >
> > > You've mentioned "evidence" a couple of
> times,
> > but
> > > I'm wondering what evidence you mean.
> >
> >
> > Google "standards of evidence in science" , and
> > you'll know. That's the great thing about
> having
> > such standards, is that we know what that
> means.
>
>
> I'm quite familiar with the standards of science.
> I just don't see how you are related that to
> taking issue with my comments here.


It's a bit troubling that you say you're familiar with the standards of science (I take your word at that, since you've chosen to modify the phrasing of my question).

You do realize that the explanations offered by Egyptologists regarding who built the GPs, and for what purposes they were built, are satisfactory for many people like myself who consider ourselves to be free thinkers?

The evidence has been offered and deemed compelling for many (dare I say most) people. Are there unanswered questions? Yes. Are there holes in the explanations offered? Yes. But that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the study of history, there will always be unanswered questions. You and I will likely agree on that statement.

Now, here's the thing where you and I part ways: I see prudence in not deviating much from the evidence that exists. If we let that inform us, we will make few mistakes. You seem to want to take those holes and unanswered questions as an excuse to just throw out what we've learned whole cloth. Your approach is more along the lines of story telling and myth-making, which is fine if that's your goal, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's science, much less us (your readers and those with whom you share this message board.