Re: Bauval on Krupp

Home

Discussion Forums

Papers

Authors

Web Links

May 6, 2024, 9:16 pm UTC

In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic

Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In

Ancient History • Ancient Egypt • Laboratory • Humanities • Apocalypse • Paper Lens • Coffee Shop
Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology

Stephen Tonkin

August 12, 2001 09:03AM

<HTML>Bryan wrote:

> I've so often replied to topics with the intention of seeking
> some sort of balance between 'camps'

I realise that I'm new here, but could you indulge me for a moment and explain why there is a need to seek a balance between camps? Surely an argument stands or falls on its own merit?

Scenario A (yes, I know, #17 <g>):
#1 X falsifies a statement made by A.
#2 M responds by falsifying a statement made by Y, who is also a critic of A
#3 M uses this to argue that X is unjustified in criticising A.

Scenario B:
#1 X posts criteria by which the writings of A may be analysed for logical integrity.
#2 P responds by showing how some of the works of Z, who is 'in the same camp' as X, fail some of these criteria.
#3 P argues or implies that it is unjustified to apply the criteria to A on the grounds that Z has failed them.

I contend that, in each case, #1 and #2 are distinct – #2 is at best a red herring – and that #3 is a non-sequitur. In no sense is #2 a 'balance'.

Specifically, the intellectual rigour and logical integrity of the likes of Bauval, dos Santos and Hancock is entirely independent of that of their critics. The latter is only relevant where it pertains to the specific criticism being made. e.g. my criticism of Bauval's error of interpretation must stand or fall on its own internal logical integrity. It is unaffected by supposed flaws in the logic of other critics of Bauval unless I have drawn on these other criticisms to base my own critique.

> I have to go out now but I will answer the original point
> with more clarity (I hope!) when I get back.

I shall look forward to it.

Steve.</HTML>

Reply Quote

Subject	Author	Posted
Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 11, 2001 04:17AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Joanne	August 11, 2001 08:04AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 11, 2001 09:40AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Joanne	August 11, 2001 10:36AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 11, 2001 10:52AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Joanne	August 11, 2001 11:01AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 03:03AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 11, 2001 11:04AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 11, 2001 11:17AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 11, 2001 11:44AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 05:16AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 07:12AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 09:03AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 10:06AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 11:40AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Katherine Reece	August 12, 2001 11:43AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Mikey Brass	August 13, 2001 05:03AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 12:38PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 01:02PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 02:10PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Derek Barnett	August 12, 2001 02:17PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 13, 2001 05:06AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 12, 2001 04:12PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 06:37PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 06:49PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 07:36PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 13, 2001 01:31AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 13, 2001 04:43AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Stephen Tonkin	August 13, 2001 05:46AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 13, 2001 06:58AM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Derek Barnett	August 12, 2001 12:55PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 12, 2001 02:30PM
Re: Bauval on Krupp	Bryan	August 13, 2001 05:38AM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login