<HTML>John
>>The big problem with Schoch is that he doesn't look at all the evidence. He has consistently dated the Sphinx to 5000-7000 BC and said (words to the effect) that "it's not my problem".
I don't agree with that - HARSH! Did you read his book?
>>Colin looks at everything and tries to find an explanation for the weathering that maximises the "coverage" of the evidence.
I read that as an argument that subjectivity trumps objectivity in science. Do you know what I mean? Surely geologists should concern themselves with the geology only, go for the best answer rather than trying to compromise? When you say 'everything' do you mean archaeological interpretation of existing evidence too?
Suppose that Schoch was right. Just for a second. How does our method allow us to get nearer to the truth if we have to obey existing chronologies (that in this case - for a second - are wrong) Don't we need a mechanism that allows us to correct existing interpretations? Are you weighting Colin Reeder over Robert Schoch not because of their geological conclusions alone, but because Reeder allows archaeology not to be quite so wrong?
There is no evidence that means that Schoch HAS to be wrong. The Sphinx could be that old. Of course Schoch could be wrong. I don't know. But the archaeological evidence isn't a slam dunk either. We're not that certain about what was happening in the Nile delta etc in the timeframe are we?
It's not that clear cut to me :-)
Claire</HTML>
