As I see it, Martin and others are laying a foundation for an idea that warrants further exploration based on an undeniable precedent, that the ancients had a strong interest in the stars, and in precession since at least 7500BC, and likely earlier imo.
This is a fact that will simply not go away. For that reason, at this early stage it makes no sense to not consider this idea as we explore other possibilities regarding what those carvings mean. In due course, as the dating at GT becomes more settled, it will become clearer if Martin's celestial orientations are reliable. By then, we will have more stelas to consider. Martin seems to be in firm agreement with me that the wider body of work will have a big impact on his theory.
To your point, made earlier - if I understand you correctly: Even if Martin's case continues to go stronger, I don't think that it will every rise to the threshold of being 'proven' to be true, in a statistical sense. But that's quite beside the point, as Martin is working with the same limitations that similarly constrain all social "sciences."
I remember this so well from my undergrad years, where I minored in Economics, Political Science and Sociology along the way to finishing with a BA in International Studies. I remember hearing from the profs, and one Econ guy in particular, how what they did was "science, science, science!" This professor, who had a huge ego, couldn't accept that people over in the Science wing felt otherwise. I agreed with the scientists. Pure science is their domain. But this is not to say that social scientists don't work well with scientific principles within their own environment. They do. But their modelling can rarely provide the same degree of certainty. The social sciences require us to accept those inherent limitations within their own realm.
What impresses me the most about this month's discussion, is the level of certainty on the part of some of Martin's detractors. They insist that cave art depicts animals and animals only. They have a strong case, of course, but they also have glaring uncertainty that they don't seem to recognize or are determined to not acknowledge. We're talking about art that is up to 40k years old.
This had reminded me of the old Ivory Tower days, when it was so much easier to crush new ideas than it is today. The internet, for being the great democratizer of information access, is the game-changer. For that, the rest of us can say the following:
1. While the cave art may be animals only, which I have said remains a strong possibility, it is really out of place to presume that anyone knows if this is true. So, please temper how you present your own interpretations.
2. And yes, the ancients, or some of them, had a strong interest in precession. So, how is it not rational, or reasonable to consider this possibility at GT?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Aug-19 18:34 by Poster Boy.