Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > While I’m at it, I suppose I should confess
> that
> > this nonsensical statement sends me into
> > paroxysmal laughter: "It says that the
> evidence is
> > irrefutable that the seqed was used. That is
> not
> > the same, however, as saying the seked was
> > absolutely used.” So the “irrefutable” must
> be
> > refutable after all? Curioser and curioser.
>
>
>
> Yes, I was wondering about that too. What's also
> curious to me is that if definite statements can
> supposedly be made from minimal amount of data
> points as long as they are consistent, the amount
> of evidence is totally inconsequential in the
> study of history. Weird.
>
>


Well, I'm not the least bit surprised to see that neither of you are capable of understanding the argument, and so you think that ridiculing those who make it is the best recourse.


To explain it one last time, every argument is refutable...but only with evidence or by demonstration of a flaw in the logic used in the argument.

Being as neither of these criteria have been met, nor can they be met in the absence of new evidence, the argument stands as irrefutable.

We are discussing the nature of argument here...not the actual use of seqeds in Egypt.

How this applies to the real life situation, however, is that in order for someone to posit an alternative to seqeds in the Old Kingdom, they must first demonstrate that there is some room in the argument for reconsideration. There is no such room.

Granted, Lee's argument about the nomenclature of the Sqd being intriguing, it still does not mean that the basic form of the Sqd was not used in the Old Kingdom, albeit under another name. Perhaps what he has identified is the clue to the fact that the reason we don't find Sqds in the Old Kingdom is because they had a different word for Sqd at that time. The evidence, however, still says the Sqd was used at that time. There is no evidence to contradict it.

Put it this way, Tommi:

A murder/robbery suspect with a criminal past has no alibi, but he also has no fingerprints on the weapon. He has no personal ties to the victim whatsoever. He has not used the victims credit cards. He has demonstrated no change in his lifestyle since the murder/robbery occurred.

But, a surveillance video shows him chasing the person down in the parking garage, stabbing him, and taking the wallet/watch/jewelry.

It's just "a minimal amount of data points". Don't you think they could still get a conviction on that?


Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.