<HTML>ISHMAEL wrote:
[. . .]
> Oh really? Well thank you for taking the time to present the
> confidently sophisticated view of these topics.
I'm happy to do so where necessary.
[. . .]
> All scientific conclusions are in this sense "conjectures " [. . .]
In which case your dichotomy (conjecture versus `rigorous' scientific dating) collapses.
> I don't think you wish to throw out the whole of
> western scientific achievment just to reject an undesirable
> date for the Sphinx!
I don't see clarifying the status of science as `throwing out' anything.
> Geological "conjectures" are testable by experiment. Water
> erosion (the case in point) has been observed in natural rock
> and tested in labratory conditions to arrive at approximate
> rates of decay [. . .]
Please cite sources on this. In particular, please cite those establishing the reliability of this method on archaeological time scales.
> Archeologists, when they cannot use the *prefered* methods of
> scientific dating (C14, chemical anlysis, stratification
> etc.) must make gueses based upon the item's intrinsic
> characteristics. But these methods are frethecely acknowledged to
> be woefully unreliable and can not be "tested" in any way.
I suggest you look into the history of the C14 method. Among the things which first established its reliablity was adequately matching dates assigned by Egyptologists following their own criteria. Consistency between different methods and criteria is a major consideration in assessing their reliability.
I'd suggest also that you look into archaeology in general. It seems to me that you have a limited and prejudiced understanding of the topic.
In particular, I suggest you look into archaeological (as opposed to geological) stratification. You appear to be conflating the two and denying any credibility (or even distinct existence) to the archaeologist's version.
[. . .]
> However, none of this is to argue that Schoch's conclusions
> are correct. Other Geologists have put forward alternative
> scenarios to explain the weathering features present on the
> Sphinx. [. . .]
In which case it's incorrect to present this issue as one of archaeologists versus `Geology'.
> --------------
> The authoritarian notion of `Chemists, Physisicists and
> Geologists' handing down pronouncements from the mountain is
> untrue to the way science works.
> --------------
>
> Well it would not work this way in this case *if*
> Archeologists posessed an alternative, testable means of
> dating artifacts. They don't so, sorry - they are indeed,
> completely reliant upon and subject to the "pronouncments" of
> "Chemists, Physisicists and Geologists."
Sorry, but you really don't understand how the relationship works. I somehow doubt that you have any experience of interdisciplinary work.
> I am certain you would think very little of an Archeologist
> who stubbornly refused to accept a date established by C14.
It depends on the case. There may be good reasons for questioning such a date. Consider for example the `old wood' problem, which takes us unavoidably into cultural questions. We can't simply read off the date of archaeological interest from the test results.
> Clearly, there are accepted "pronouncments" which are indeed
> viewed as authoritative.
I gather that this dispenses with interdisciplinary dialogue.
[. . .]
> While I do not wish to assert that geological weathering has
> yet established itself as a reliable means of dating on par
> with radio-carbon analysis, it is infinitely more reliable
> than the best means available to Archeologists alone.
This is just silly. If it's not been established as reliable, there's no basis for comparison. As for the means available to archaeologists, it would help if you knew something about them.
> -------------
> It occurs to me that it might not be archaeology which has
> nothing to contribute to this debate.
> -------------
>
> If you are implying that it is Geology that "has nothing to
> contribute to this debate," [. . .]
I said and implied no such thing. What is unfortunately clear is that you are bringing no significant knowledge of archaeology to the debate.
> Geology is the first foundation of Archeology and, without
> it, the entire dicipline collapses.
I gather that the concept of interdisciplinary dialogue evades you.
[. . .]
> The matter in dispute is Archeology's alleged "contribution."
>
> THE QUESTION:
>
> What objective, testable methodology, independent of any
> other dicipline, does Archeology have at its disposal to date
> recovered artifacts?
>
> MY ANSWER:
>
> None.
I'm sorry, but this is the silliest thing I've read in ages. Mutual consistency of <i>different</i> methods is a major consideration in assessing their reliablity. Archaeology is intrinsically interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. The notion of taking a method and testing it `independent of any other discipline' is illusory, the product of a misleading and untenable abstraction.
> MY CONCLUSION:
>
> My position stands:
>
> There is no conflict between Geology and Archeology in the
> matter of establishing an age for the Sphinx. [. . .]
Schoch and Lehner see it differently.</HTML>
