This week’s Night vale seemed to make a call out to disc world. It was very sweet.
2 Likes
Josh! Kirby! Much missed, too…
1 Like
It’s true! Go read that Pratchett book.
1 Like
I read some Pratchett, long ago. It was like Adams but flashier.
Have you ever been inside? The construction is not conducive to storing large amounts of grain at all, and even less to getting it out again when needed.
2 Likes
Hey, it’s a PDF written by a lone “researcher” and published nowhere!
Thus: QED, theory proven.
4 Likes
The stone boxes have no usefulness to researchers and are ridiculously heavy and bulky with no redeeming value, so why waste the time and manpower trying to get them outside? Besides, they’re useful to show where the sarcophagi WERE.
Do you understand that all the items in the pyramids have been removed, either by robbers or by researchers? That includes all the layers in the sarcophagi.
You’re a slightly interesting trolley, which I think is why we’re bothering to respond to you.
1 Like
Read more… his style diverges a bit from Adams, I think.
3 Likes
That’s total volume, including all the stones. There’s almost no open space inside…it’s mostly stone.
1 Like
‘Like Adams’ is the worst criticism of a writer I’ve ever heard, anyway 
They were removed by Osiris when the Pharoahs moved to the afterlife!
4 Likes
Absolutely so, and in many other ways. He made different use of setting to a large degree as well.
I dunno. I don’t see much overlap between the two, in terms of writing style and what not, but I appreciate them both.
1 Like
On further reflection the Adams thing really wasn’t apt.
3 Likes
But that doesn’t stop it being evidence!* Teach the controversy!
* For some values of “evidence”.
4 Likes
That’s a bit off there @robertmckenna The appeal to authority is saying that they are tombs with no evidence other than the authority of expert opinion.
The Book of John Mandeville is an actual verifiable book (you can still read it) which is referenced by other books of the time and since. Further, the postulated theory grain storage has been an oft repeated one for a few hundred years now. These are verifiable facts which are independent of the position of authority.
Please, understand, I still do not support the grain silo theory. I mention it only to reply to your claim of logical fallacy.
What is it that people find so difficult when it comes to admitting a thing is not known? Is it that we were told it was a tomb when we were young, have been repeating this idea as fact for many years, and when confronted with the idea that it’s only an unsubstantiated theory, many will double down on ignorance and perform some clever mental gymnastics in response to this cognitive dissonance all in defense of their belief? The idea that it must be a tomb due to that theory being popular among some archaeologists is a false dichotomy which ignores the very real possibility that the purpose of the great pyramids may be unknown or unknowable.
Since I make no assertions as to the nature or purpose of the great pyramids, the attempts here to shift the burden from those who claim it is a tomb to those who doubt the evidence is fairly transparent though I do appreciate the people who’ve taken the time to respond to what’s been, for me in any case, an interesting topic despite those who label me a trolley. I suppose for some people, attempting to challenge their views with questions and and skepticism is being a trolley. If that’s driving trollies, then the term trolley is meaningless.
You also accuse your interlocutors of appealing to authority and of committing a burden of proof fallacy. The thing is, it is not a simple “appeal to authority” fallacy to defer to the scientific authorities in a particular field (because, even though they’re not infallible, they have consistently been shown to know more about their own field than laypeople do). As a consequence, burden of proof for a discussion among laypeople would be with the person claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong.
We start out with a widely accepted scientific consensus…
The fact alone that that’s what I’ve been taught in school made me initially estimate the likelyhood of the “pyramids are tombs” theory at 90%. Yes, I’m appealing to authority, but I’m doing that based on an educated guess of how reliable those authorities are. Yes, there have been wrong theories in the past, and they’ve been taught at schools. That’s why I’m not saying 100%.
Now you have claimed other ideas to be “equally likely” as the accepted theory, and have asked others to supply the evidence that this is not so.
Now some people have answered, and you could definitely get a more complete picture of the evidence if you invested more time. The circumstantial evidence alone should be enough to get the likelyhood of the theory to 90%.
Yet you complained that the evidence was “only circumstantial”. Now I’m losing track of what you are arguing about… are you still defending your claim that the theories are equally likely, or have you shifted the goalposts? Are you now arguing against the claim that we can be exactly 100% sure that the pyramids where tombs?
6 Likes
Wow, you’re so deep.
Except that many of us have explained to you that the evolution of grain storage is actually very well known and documented, including in the Giza area, and all artifacts and documentation show that the pyramids were for certain pharoahs’ burial chambers and not for grain storage or other purposes.
In fact, the pyramids at Giza would have been the single worst place for grain storage in the area.
Some of us have actually been there, you know. Getting to the tiny little chambers is very difficult. It was set up to be filled and sealed ONCE.
It’s quite funny how you’ve given up claiming that you’re just teaching the controversy and are now pretty much settled on grain storage as the mechanism to show that highly trained scientists, etc. don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s so easy to lead you around by the nose. You need to present a bit more of a challenge, or we’ll all get bored.
8 Likes
Both theories have been considered the accepted expert consensus at different points in time. My position is that both are equally founded in verifiable proof. Logic informs us that neither theory can be verified so the correct position would be that the purpose may be unknown or unknowable.
edit to add: it’s the difference between teaching that the purpose of the great pyramids is unknown but we suspect they were tombs and teaching that there are tombs.
Try reading instead of skimming. I’ve stated many times that I do not believe it was ever used for grain storage. Or, have I fallen victim to your driving trollies?
You’ve provided great humor. Thank you!
4 Likes
Geez, stop feeding him. It’s like arguing with one of those on average more punitive and less altruistic people.
Listen, and understand. That troll is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until this thread is closed.
1 Like
