Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
Cutting to the chase, my own problem with logic is that IMHO it's not really logical at all. Why do I say this? Well what do you start with in logic? Axioms. What's an axiom? An unproven assumption. So right out the starting gate you begin with a) assumptions that are b) unproven or considered self-evident. Kind of like piling fog on top of fog. OOOOOkay...Let's see where this get's us. Well it's obvious the sun goes around the earth. That's self-evident. And the earth must be flat. That too is self evident. And 2,000 years later of misteps and inquistions we finally arrive at the truth.
But I agree we've beat this one to death enough. So you can say the last word on it, since it's your forte and not mine.
So instead let's turn to Don and me (sorry to talk about you in the 3'rd person Don.) and his theories. Don and I go back to Guardians when I first encountered his theories I thought they were 'untenable' being a card carrying member of the orthodoxy and a firm believer that the truth would win out. Everything went hunky dorey as long as I agreed with the orthodox. But then I started noticing some things that seemed 'wrong' with aspects of Egyptology and that it was time to express my point of view that was based firmly on the facts and logic. I naievely thought that the orthodoxy would welcome these observations since they were fairly modest and inconsequential and based on the accepted evidence. Instead I got the equivalent of this [
www.youtube.com] as thanks. But it wasn't just on the boards that I ran into the orthodoxy. I was in a class dealing with some problems in biology when one of the students made the modest proposal that the problem could be solved by running the sample through an electron microscope and then we'd have a pix. instead of going through all of these convoluted chemical processes. Well one thing led to another and the teacher blew up at the student. OOOKay so much for open mindedness. I took another class in microbiology and another student again made a similar suggestion to a different teacher, why not run it through an electron microscope. Once again the same answer no need for electron microscopes. This time there wasn't an explosion. Just a quite acceptance that the teacher knew best and another line of investigation was choked off in the cradle. It will probably take years if ever to undue the damage. So when Don goes on and on about Pi and Phi, A) I have to wonder if he's seeing something we're not. And
He has found some really interesting things, like medieval art that I never knew existed.
As far as my own blow ups with the orthodoxy it was wonderful, it steeled my resolve for the GW debate, to look at the facts, study the data, and not be influenced by the most venomous attacks I've ever received in my life.
>
>
> Again, beyond the scope of this particular
> discussion. I agree completely, though.
>
> Having said that, sometimes the debunking, no
> matter HOW resoundingly accurate, can appear to be
> self-serving propaganda if the debunker ALSO has a
> "competing theory". (Shall I briefly remind you
> of how all studies paid for by oil companies are
> automatically discounted in the global warming
> debate?)
>
> I think we've beaten this one about as far as it
> can go.
>
> Have a great night, Rick. And I SWEAR I am going
> to get to TBC one of these days. I've got several
> writing projects in the works, and they must take
> precedent. Sorry! You know the routine.
Thanks Anthony. Every night is a great one. TBC will be there. In fact I'm making a video about it right now. So by the time you get to it, there might be a documentary on it.
>