Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consensus science is irrelevant?
>
> Sorry but that simply isn't the case. Given that
> the philosophical basis of science is that what we
> know is imperfect and is continually refined by
> new observations and new data then all science is
> by definition consensual in the sense that
> currently accepted theory is held as the most
> usefully available model of reality that we have.
>
> While it is always inherent in science to
> challenge the consensus to suggest that the
> process whereby the academy accepts a paradigm is
> irrelevant to academic and scientific research is
> pushing the argument too far.


Too often it is used as an argument from authority. Honestly, Pete, should evolution and natural selection be put to a vote?



>
> While I would argue that the decipherment of
> hieroglyphics is not a scientific process, even
> accepting it is for the sake of argument you are
> simply demanding an unattainable standard of
> evidence.

Incorrect. I am demanding nothing. I am describing the standard I retain for myself, since it was my assessment that was requested.



> Translation of any language is nuanced
> by the context in which it was written and the
> context within which the translator is operating.
> We will never know EXACTLY what was meant when the
> PTs were written - certainly in a spiritual and
> metaphorical sense but even in a concrete way -
> the exact meaning of individual glyphs will never
> be exactly pinned down. What we hope to get are
> continual refinement to our understanding of
> them.


Two people in the same culture can have different ideas of what a word means. I can imagine that some hieroglyphs were subject to the same difficulties.



>
> However, to use this as a basis to say that
> because we can never be certain of the exact
> meaning of the texts that the consensus of the
> best interpretations of the best experts can
> simply be disregarded as evidence is
> unacceptable.
>


I don't think I said that, Pete. Can you quote me?



> While I agree that argument from authority has no
> intrinsic value there IS a value to learning and
> expertise that should not be disregarded. While
> it's fine not to RELY on authority to support an
> argument you do have to have some reason for
> rejecting that authority - new observations or new
> data that show the consensus to be wrong.
>
> I am not convinced that you have this.


I wasn't implying that I did have it. I was simply stating that it could exist, so we can not make absolute statements about any of this.

Anthony

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