originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LABTECH767
most of these theory's of the past are based NOT on science but on conjecture
Sounds like even more conjecture to me, which is part of the problem here. The irony! I don't care about "your" wak theories, present some data or get
the fck off the ceramic?
Learn to spell your swear words or how to use the greatest expletive of them all, a row of Asterix (that's the one that look's like a snowflake) and
try not to take offense every time someone disagrees with you it's bad for the hairline.
Over here in blighty we know how to swear my young sir and after well over a decade of dealing with smack heads (heroin addict's to you), coke heads
and all manner of weirdos in a security role well let's just say I have heard a lot of insults, some really very good ones at that, insults to make
your toes curl and your gut tremble in laughter while you regurgitate your lager and curry.
(ha after my humorous retort I only then made some pretty bad spelling errors and had to come back and fix them)
Ok let's clarify it for you Louis Pasteur was a scientist as was Mary Curie, Einstein, Oppenheimer etc, Lord Carnarvon was NOT, they call archaeology
a science and also History but in fact they are ARTS not sciences, archaeology is becoming a whole lot MORE scientific with the advent of isotopic
dating etc but that is then relying on REAL sciences to give them the data that Archaeology can in no way arrive at itself, those sciences are Physics
and in particular Atomic physics and the study of isotopic radioactive decay over time which is usually - usually - pretty damned accurate.
So I put it to you sir that Neither History (which time and again has been proven to be wrong, the victor writes the history) NOR Archaeology a
Victorian gentleman grave robbers favourite pastime is a Science they are indeed ARTS (and perhaps to a greater degree Philosophies), calling them
science is an insult to REAL science, Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, Medicine etc.
They are to put it mildly not even in the same league, calling them part of the ARTS is far more kind and fair and practical but would get an awful
lot of self important bursary scrounging con men all ruffled up in there arm chairs now would it not.
To be fair Archaeology to it's credit has taken on a LOT of scientific method over the lifetime of the principle, it has taken on the use of clear
stratification analysis, careful excavation and recording at every stage and this is proper scientific principle at work but it has a long way to go
before it can be called a Science, it is an OBSERVATION and THE science of observation comes into play in the matter but so too does interpretation
and opinion, same with most REAL science but at least there you have fixed baselines to work toward while in Archaeology most of it is built on dated
and much in need of change foundation's.
It is therefore a serious shame that REAL scientists such as geologists often run for the hills when pseudo scientists such as Egyptologists complain
when such Geologists identify weathering and erosion on the enclosure of the sphynx as likely over ten thousand years old, it is also shameful that it
is the REAL science that has to alter it's opinion in favour of the Pseudo science of a bunch of glorified grave thieves and tomb robbers.
edit on 1-10-2020 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)