<HTML>Claire,
> When I posted that Occams Razor thing on the GH MB lots of
> people (well at least one anyway) thought that if you compare
> Schoch et al with Gauri et al then Occams Razor would mean
> that Schoch wins. What do you think of that?
hmm. Consider this - those that agree with Schoch: several best selling alternative authors (JAW et al dispute Schoch's dating to 5-7,000 BC but they all agree on an older Sphinx) and several million of their readers. Yet not one independent geologist has been named who will endorse what Schoch claims. Why is that?
The fact is that the geological weathering of limestone is a complex process and involves rain, wind, sand, salts, sunlight etc. Which specific mechanisms can be said to account for specific erosion features? I don't think you can categorise specific features with independent mechanisms in different time periods do you?
I think that if you intend using Occam's razor to determine which geological opinion is correct you need to know about all the geological weathering factors and also fully understand the effects of each erosion mechanism. I still don't think the experts fully understand all the processes that are going on. If the discipline of Geology cannot come to a consensus opinion then I don't think any of us "thickies" are in the position to blunt Occam's razor by hazarding at an uneducated guess.
> I don't know - you tell me.....how can we test Schoch's
> hypothesis? How can we test the Khafre built the Sphinx
> hypothesis?
On the basis of the available archaeological evidence. You can dismiss the direct attribution of the Sphinx with Khafre but at least there is some circumstantial evidence. Schoch doesn't have a bean.
> And I suppose I'm working on the assumption that
> other geologists will either back or dismiss Schoch's dating
> - we're in the annoying pre peer review period here.
Schoch's hypothesis has been around for 10 years now so when are these geologists going to come out and show their public support of it?
> >>There is no archaeological evidence that can lend credence
> to Schoch's contention of an advanced culture at Giza prior
> to the late pre-dynastic period. Without any collaborative
> evidence Schoch's hypothesis remains unproven and unproveable.
>
>
> Why unproveable?
History is a process of deductive logic. The Sphinx is closely associated with a predominantly 4th dynasty site. The evidence for a pre-3,000 BC settlement at Giza is non-existent. If this were a murder case and the Sphinx were a dead body there is no way you could prove that the murder occurred 7-9,000 years ago on the basis of one mans opinion. Especially when the opposition have other equally qualified experts on their team.
The burden of proof rests with Schoch - no archaeological evidence to support him means he cannot prove there was a human culture at that site that carved the Sphinx when he says they did.
> >>We're discussing archaeology so the archaeological evidence
> will always take precedence.
>
>
> Is this a science norm? Suppose we were talking geology, and
> the Sphinx came up in conversation - would the geological
> evidence take precedence then? As you can see - I don't
> understand :-)
I wasn't very clear. The question asked is who built the Sphinx and when? This can only be answered satisfactorily on the basis of the archaeological evidence. If you don't have proof of a human presence or a culture from the time frame claimed how can we prove that humans were even responsible for carving it?
> >>Schoch wants to be taken seriously but he will not unless
> any archaeological evidence is found to support his
> contention of an earlier Sphinx.
>
>
> So you think that the archaeological evidence is the
> important evidence here - that archaeology trumps geology.
> As in above. Why?
1. The geological opinion is undecided.
2. Only one 'expert' geologist claims the Sphinx was carved at a time when we have no evidence of a human occupation of the site.
3. The archaeological evidence is internally consistent and can be cross referenced with multiple sources.
4. Absolutely none of the archaeological evidence supports the possibility of a pre-3,000 BC Sphinx.
Some alternative opinions based on dubious archaeoastronomy claim the Sphinx may have been around since 10,500 BC or earlier. Should we accept them over Schoch and orthodox Egyptology? How about if the chemistry of the rock indicated it was carved in 15,000 BC? Independent disciplines do not take precedence over one another just because we favour a particular interpretation. If you have an abundance of archaeological evidence that all points to habitation of the site at one specific time and none that supports an alternative independently derived date then you have to go with the archaeological evidence. Particularly when the alternative date is derived by a method that cannot be confirmed by independent experts in the same discipline.
Do people trust Schoch because he speaks from a position of authority (and if so why not trust the educated and established geologists that oppose him?) or because people want him to be right?
Duncan</HTML>
