OCaptain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > ...
> > > 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?

Relevance to modern scientific standards?



> The evidence has been offered and deemed
> compelling for many (dare I say most) people.

Again, relevance to modern scientific standards?



> 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.

Correct, and I never said to throw anything out. I only said there was enough reasonable doubt to warrant consideration of alternate hypotheses. This business about the tomb hypothesis, or claims of provenance, or the Dynastic timeline being indisputably "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt illogical and does not comply with modern standards of proof. The fact is, finding a lintel with a name inscribed does not constitute a threshold of proof or provenance regarding the original construction of the doorway, let alone the building it was installed in. Likewise, observing that because a stone box happens to be large enough to fit a supine human therefore renders it a sarcophagus that served as a "tomb" without ever having found a single intact corpse in any unbreached stone box is illogical.

It's not a matter of whether there are any unanswered questions in the study of history. It's a matter of how easily historians and the humanities disciplines jump to firm conclusions on the basis of such flimsy evidence to the point of not only claiming that their contentions are indisputably true, but to the point of harrassing and insulting anyone who disagrees with those conclusions.

Regarding throwing out the baby with the water, I've said many times that I really do not have a problem with people subscribing to the traditional narratives. What I do have a problem with is when those people claim their belief is the ONLY belief that may be considered to be true, that such beliefs are based on sound scientific standards, and that any other hypothesis is categorically wrong even when such alterative hypotheses consider all of the evidence while avoiding some of the harsh contradictions that plague such traditional notions.



> Now, here's the thing where you and I part ways: I
> see prudence in not deviating much from the
> evidence that exists.

I agree with that.



> If we let that inform us, we
> will make few mistakes.

I agree with that.



> You seem to want to take
> those holes and unanswered questions as an excuse
> to just throw out what we've learned whole cloth.

Not true. I only require that the contradictions be reconciled. If they can't be reconcile, then other hypotheses warrant consideration. Likewise, if other hypotheses also accommodate all of the evidence, then they warrant further consideration. Just because a traditional belief was first on the block doesn't render it any more credibility than the newest hypothesis if both accommodate the evidence and confront minimum contradictions. However, I see very many contradictions in the traditional tenets, and this is why I believe many people feel the need to explore other hypotheses that better reconcile such contradictions.



> 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.

And I think it's hilarious that you would characterize what I've proposed in that manner. I see the traditional narratives replete with myth and story-telling. What is the logic behind attributing those 1600 ton blocks of stone to the Roman Empire when there is zero evidence they had the wherewithal to achieve such stonework? What is the logic behind attributing all that megalithic construction along the Nile to a late Stone Age culture who had yet to discover iron, the wheel, and pulleys? Where is the logic in claiming the Relieving Chambers actually relieve any force impinging from above them? Where is the logic behind claiming the Granite Plugs in G1 served as a security mechanism?

The fact of the matter is that many traditional narratives are loaded to the gills with story-telling and myths. What we have seen over the past few years of internet access is that when even the slightest degree of scientific scrutiny is applied, many of those traditional narratives quickly unhinge. This is the reason so many of us feel the need to explore other, more plausible alternatives that do a better job considering the evidence while avoiding the contradictions.

In my opinion.