> Wrong. Main tool in the Egyptological toolbox is
> having studied the language to a level of being
> able to deal with it directly (and not via
> translations of translations). It seems you would
> rather not mention this. Why is that?
I'm not sure I mentioned this before but it is rather embarrassing being a member of a race that judges people through parsing a book of incantation and I don't believe in "intelligence". ie- using a book of incantation to know anything is stupid even for a species with no intelligence. It's embarrassing.
> The irrationalism and obscurantism of the fringe,
> meanwhile, is seen in precisely its disdainful
> dismissal of “context” for no other reason
> than it knows very well that it fails on
> this criterion.
We ignore the assumptions that changeless and highly superstitious bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps and Egyptology ignores the little evidence they've deigned to gather while worshiping a book of magic.
> We may note in passing that Lehner made himself
> unpopular with the fringe by his apostasy from the
> Revealed Religion of Edgar Cayce.
Either that or those whom the Gods would destroy they first drive mad.
> That you put “semantics” on a level with
> “insults” is noted. For the clueful this says
> all that needs saying on the contents of your
Semantics and words games are devoid of science and meaning. Insults are irrelevant and devoid of reason. Definitions are irrelevant. Beliefs are irrelevant. Scientific models are irrelevant. Convictions mean nothing.
What does matter is logic and evidence. What matters is the nature of reality as disclosed by experiment. What matters in a debate is understanding reality and being able to communicate it to other people. Since there were no ramps, tombs, or static bumpkins I should think Egyptology can't win any debate so they hide behind "peer review" and word games. Writing "peer review" into the "scientific" method was pure genius since it's the ultimate word game and the ultimate obfuscation. Why use science you don't understand when you can just all agree that the answers are already known? Why use science when you can smile smugly and say superstition made these people strong? Why use science when it consistently says you are wrong.