Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it depends on the definition of "we".

But, in that case, then, "we" can refer only to you and some others. It can't refer to the wider "we", as in "all of us", because not all of us have read your theory ...

> Evolution is a "theory". But evolution existed
> whether or not Darwin offered Natural Selection as
> the mechanism or not.

But this is going around in circles ... If we accept that evolution by natural selection is the explanation for the world around us, then, yes, of course, evolution existed independent of the theory describing it. If, however, we don't accept that evolution by natural selection is the explanation for the world around us, then how could we say that "evolution existed" ... ?? If we're wrong about our contention that natural selection is not the true explanation, then, of course, your statement would be true ... but this depends on being able to prove, without a shadow of doubt, that evolution by natural selection is the right explanation.

> I can't think of one that hasn't been resoundingly
> debunked already...without drilling holes into the
> pyramid.

I think that this is perhaps going a little far ... There could be other theories and hypotheses as yet unpublished.

> > Until
> > such time as your theory can be discussed,
> > compared with others, and perhaps deemed
> worthy of
> > wide acceptance, surely it cannot be safe to
> say
> > that we know why the shafts were there?
>
>
> The abstract has been available for well over a
> year, here on this board.

(This link.)

The fact that people
> have not chosen to investigate the answer
> themselves in that time, and amass their own case
> for or against the theory,

But the abstract refers to "multiple surviving texts, Egyptian creation myths, temples and structures ... " It would surely be rather a tall order for people - even specialists in the field - to make their own enquiries on this rather broad basis alone, would it not ...

> is no reason to
> advocate the damaging of the structure.

But the people who are proposing to carry out the investigations of the GP don't necessarily know about your theory. They would surely need it to be published and widely evaluated before they could take it into account ...

And no one is suggesting that the structure be damaged. The idea is surely to carry out an investigation in a manner calculated to do the least possible damage.

> When I came up with the idea, I didn't real
> somebody's post on a message board. I had to do
> it on my own, every step of the way. These folks
> have had a heck of a leg up... and yet it doesn't
> appear they've done any of the necessary research
> to either confirm or refute the idea.

As I've said, "these folks" don't necessarily know about your theory, Anthony ...

> We can do the
> research ourselves and find the answers. It's not
> about imagination, it's about facts, evidence and
> logic. Those belong to no one person. Every bit
> of evidence for my theory, and as I've discovered
> after the fact, a lot more that I didn't even know
> existed, is available to the serious student of
> Egyptology.

OK ... this addresses my reservations described above, then. Nevertheless, not all students of Egyptology, no matter how serious, appear to have come to the same conclusions as you ... There might be differing opinions.

In the 18 months since the abstract
> first appeared on this site, only a small handful
> of people have even privately contacted me to
> discuss the subject... let alone contacted me
> regarding evidence they had discovered that either
> confirmed or refuted it. (and for the record,
> nobody has found any evidence whatsoever that has
> refuted it.)

I really think that we would have to await final publication of the paper before such a definitive statement could be made.

> Ergo, people's lack of initiative in researching
> the subject is not a sufficient reason to damage
> the structure in question. To argue otherwise is,
> in my judgment, arguing for a victim mentality.

But to what extent are other researchers in the wider world obliged to take into account a theory described so far only in a presentation and an abstract ... ?

> Nothing stops these folks from finding the real
> answer for themselves.

Well: it seems to me that the big stumbling-block remains the fact that your theory hasn't yet been published.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me