Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> SC: In case you hadn't realised, Egyptology is
> considered a 'soft science' often open and subject
> to 'best guess' interpretation - even by the
> experts. This is why, in fact, there exists so
> much disagreement among experts and amateurs
> alike.
No, the disagreement exists because there are multiple ways to logically interpret the evidence.
Alternative historians use this as "evidence" that there is insufficient agreement among Egyptologists to conclude that we "really know anything" and then they insert their fanciful, unevidenced speculations into the mix as if somehow they have the same level of validity as real history.
Stellar correlations will never be on a par, with say, the discussion of whether Tut was the son of Akhenaten or not. We can have the discussion about Tut and Akhenaten because they both actually existed. There is evidence that both Tut and Akhenaten existed and were kings of Egypt. Star correlations for pyramids in the Old Kingdom have no such evidence, so they cannot be discussed in the same manner, or with the same validity of historical accuracy.
> And no, I am not saying for a moment that
> every single thing in AE studies is open to
> question. However, applying strict 'technical
> methodologies' as advocated by Anthony, cannot
> always be applied to 'soft sciences'.
No, but they are the best place to start. When your theories are so far off from the evidenciary record, and are claiming to be completely revolutionary, you must apply more strict standards... not less. Remember what Carl Sagan said: "
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
> To do so
> would most likely call into question much of what
> has already been accepted on a best guess basis by
> the experts.
Yes, it does. That is not a bad thing to do, either.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
