Problems with Egyptian Dynasties

[Erpingham]

Nah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."

It often feels like Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest.

[Justin Swanton]

Nah. How about "Once more into the breach, dear friends."

It often feels like Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest.

Or maybe "The Guard dies but never surrenders"?

Depends of course on who the Guard is. 

[RichT]

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.

[Patrick Waterson]

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.

Mot de Cambronne!

Anyway, is this to be an aphorisms thread or a discussion thread on problems with Egyptian dynasties?

[Justin Swanton]

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. C'est de la folie.

Mot de Cambronne!

Anyway, is this to be an aphorisms thread or a discussion thread on problems with Egyptian dynasties?

All yours Patrick. 

How complex is the topic, i.e. can we do justice to it in a single thread?

We're looking at incomplete primary sources, but can one stitch together a sufficiently coherent picture from them that fits everything in and doesn't do violence to any source? How probable is the final mosaic? By 'probable' I mean that the picture may completely account for the sources, but how much objective certitude does it have?

For the Knife Through Butter thesis, for example, I would say it offers the most complete explanation of the sources but - since no source directly describes the technique of a cavalry wedge charging infantry - it remains at a level a little below moral certitude. For the file-gap Line Relief hypothesis the certitude is much higher since the principal source, Livy, does describe the mechanism of one line taking over from another. The Latin just has to be properly understood.

[Mark G]

It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who  denigrate academic research.

[Justin Swanton]

It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who  denigrate academic research.

Which puts us in good company.

Rather more to the point: nobody can denigrate solid academic research. Proven facts are proven facts. Academic consensus built on dubious foundations is however another matter. I'll stick my nose right in and say that the theory of evolution is an academic consensus that doesn't last five minutes in the hands of a serious geneticist - but that's another topic entirely.*

*As a PS I would be quite happy to accept evolution as true if it was proved as such, but at the very least a hypothesis must account for all the facts and evolution doesn't do that by a long stretch.

[Mark G]

Not surprised by that at all.

Would you care for the trifecta on climate change?

[Patrick Waterson]

It is striking that the two most vociferous defenders of their own theories are also the two who denigrate academic research.

For the record, not academic research per se but falsely-held academic conclusions and shaky research methods.

[Moderator mode] Mark, please start playing the ball rather than the man.  If you have anything substantive to say about the problems concerning Egyptian dynasties, please say it.  If you want to argue generally that received academic opinion is always correct (even when it disagrees with itself), or whatever your actual point is, please do it in a new thread specifically for that topic.

Would you care for the trifecta on climate change?

Not on this forum, please.  Past climate change, fine.  Current fashionable theory about current climate change, no thank you.  There are plenty of other places where that can be discussed.

I also suggest we not get dragged into discussing the theory of evolution, at least not here. [/Moderator mode]

[Mark G]

That will do.

[Justin Swanton]

I also suggest we not get dragged into discussing the theory of evolution, at least not here. [/Moderator mode]

Agreed. 

[aligern]

Surely the nature of the ; theory, attempted destruction, new theory process is that a theory can be held to be true as long as it is neither dusproved or can be held to be the best of the theories available. We are very unlikely to get a new source on Chaironea and wedge cavalry units, so we are free to choose whichever story looks most in accord with the direct evidence and other evidence from the time that accords with the facts on the ground. Consensus is not proof, thouh it is very useful if we want to build upon the individual action to illuminate others, such as how Alexander got to Porus , or won at the Granicus, or how other Hellenistic cavalry performed.
As to Evolution, it is continuously being refined by discovery and it is very difficult to see some other coherent theory replacing it, though it could happen when a spaceship lands and the little grey chaps get out and explain that all along it was them doing genetic engineering 101.
Roy

[RichT]

If there is a moderator on this forum perhaps he could do his job and shut down inflammatory off topic nonsense like Justin's. I also suggest that some posts are well into the territory of 'bringing the society into disrepute'. Some stricter moderating (or a better moderator) is needed.

More to the point, this thread has already died a natural and well-deserved death.  Can it please be left alone? Nothing whatever is to be gained from this zombie thread, and it will only cause discord. Please, there are other better things to talk (or even argue) about. Move along, people.

[Justin Swanton]

I agree that we leave topics like evolution well alone (it was unwise of me to introduce it) if for no other reason than that they do not pertain to the SoA field of interest. However the dating of the Egyptian dynasties does pertain and it's an interesting subject. I think we are free on a forum to advance hypotheses that do not coincide with the most commonly held opinions of academia provided we can supply some evidence to support them.

[Erpingham]

Could we please stick to the old barrack room rule of "no religion, no politics" or a version thereof?  I realise we all carry our political and religious views in our intellectual responses to questions, but overtly raising current political or religious controversies here should be a no-no.

On the subject of advancing hypotheses, I'm OK with that, but I don't think it is well served by anti-academic framing.  Yes, academics can be wrong.  But they usually have studied the evidence in more depth than many of us, so their views shouldn't be dismissed lightly.