Scott Creighton wrote:

> MS: You’re the one selectively forgetting it, Scott: your
> conclusion merely reiterates the presuppositions you’ve imposed
> on the evidence.
>
> SC: No. I see the extant evidence.

. . . through the prism of your presuppositions.

Claiming to see things “objectively” while everyone else is “biased” is a typical trait of the dogmatist and the crank.

Truth is, Scott, recognising one’s presuppositions and looking at them critically is the first step towards letting the “evidence” make the blindest of difference.

You’ve made yours immune to refutation by refusing to see even that you have them. This doesn’t take you out of the realm of reasoned argument, for the simple reason that you were never in it to start with.

> YOU and Greg are the ones
> here claiming the King’s List was painted, not I.

Point me to the post where I say so.

Hint: there isn’t one.

> The burden of proof then is on YOU and Greg to prove this was so.

Oh. I see. Your position is the default. Everything else must be “proven”.

Consider your example of a relief which still bears some traces of paint. What makes you think there was ever any more? Why not the principle you apply to the List relief: no paint now, no paint ever?

You accept in this case that there was once paint where there is none now. So what removed it? What would have happen if that same agency acted for longer, or more intensely?

Do tell us.

This just to show your nonexistent grasp of a basic principle of rationality: parity of reasoning.

Or, to put it simply, your double standard.

The List relief is stylistically consistent with the reliefs (at Abydos) which do still bear paint: this is suggestive. Painting reliefs was normal practive, as far as we can tell. Where does the burden of proof lie? It’s not so clear that it lies where you’d like it to lie.

> Let’s
> have your EVIDENCE that PROVES, unequivocally, the King’s List
> relief at Abydos once was painted and that all its paint fell
> off.

Let’s have your evidence which “proves” unequivocally that it didn’t. Have you gone and performed microscopic examination and then not told us about it? You dark horse.

Well, no, actually: all you’ve done is look at images you found on the net.

Did your gaffe over the Vyse journal teach you nothing?

> That is all you have to do and I will withdraw my claim. Can’t
> say any fairer than that. Let’s see it
>
> MS: Recommendation: add Introductory Logic and
> Epistemology 101 to your growing list of remedial
> classes.
>
> SC: Alas, Martin, insults won’t prove your case. Only EVIDENCE
> will have a chance of doing that. Let’s see your EVIDENCE that
> the King’s List at Abydos was once painted and that all its
> paint has since fallen off.

Oh, I see: so, contrary to all appearances, you are well versed in these areas and hold nuanced views which enrich your practice.

Again, Scott, show me where I said any such thing. I’m sure that someone so scrupulously attentive to the evidence as you are wouldn’t just make things up—or misattribute to me things which were said by other people.

> SC: The solar disc - as I'm sure you well know - can be
> depicted with or without the centre dot.
>
> MS: Oh. So you do know about variant orthography. I trust
> you’ve profited from my posts on variant writings? Please
> don’t injure yourself in your haste to apologise for suggesting
> that I was lying about it.
>
> SC: I have no need to apologise here for anything – least of
> all to you.

No need to try so hard, Scott: you’ve already provided ample evidence of your unpleasant arrogance.

> SC: This is evidenced by the solar discs in the names of
> Djedfre, Khafre, Menkaure etc in the Abydos King List which
> also do not bear the dot in their solar disc.
>
> MS: You really don’t know what a circular argument is, do you?
> But how appropriate that you should offer one on the topic of a
> disc.
>
> SC: The only “circular” argument I’m concerned with here is the
> circular inscription that reads “solar disc” and NOT a circular
> “placenta” (or even a circular sieve or a circular Aa1). So,
> Martin – let’s cut to the chase here. Do you accept that:

[SNIP]

No, Scott. Let’s cut the the point in my post which you snipped and evaded. There seems to be more than one instance of Aa1 in the List relief:

[commons.wikimedia.org]

Repeat: get looking!

M.