<HTML>Hi Claire,
I'm sure I'll get blasted for this again... since I'm trying to view things from a different scientific perspective than many others anyway. But you wrote:
"A while ago I started a thread on the GH MB about Occam’s Razor and the Age of the Sphinx debate – almost everyone who contributed had it the other way – they all felt that when Occam’s Razor was applied it would be applied not against the archaeological evidence but against competing geological explanations – and most concluded a ‘slam dunk’ for Schoch.
So my question is; don’t we compare geological evidence against geological evidence – Schoch versus Gauri for example, for Occam’s Razor? "
Now do you see why I have a problem with setting up a rule for something I feel should be simply an accepted progression in basic common sense logic? It's use can get *distorted* by twisting the basic common sense. I see no common sense in using Occam's Razor to separate apples and oranges. But there's my final Occam's Razor comment. I have little interest in debates that involve whence the common sense logic of science evolved. So let me go hide before the flame throwers begin. (I guess I should have been smart and made this a private e-mail instead huh? Well, I'm actually just making sure I follow the Peter Principle here. Later.)
Litz</HTML>