Ben Carson has nutty theories about the Egyptian pyramids

boing
226

[quote=“anotherone, post:223, topic:68749”]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.
[/quote]

Wait… are you equating the true (but in my opinion useless) statement that the purpose is not knowable with 100% certainty with the (in my opinion wrong) statement that both positions are equally founded?

If so, then there is something very basic about your logic that I disagree with.

Nothing is ever verified with 100% certainty. What would constitute “verifiable proof” for you? That doesn’t exist outside of mathematics. There is only evidence. And evidence is quite useful. It can tell us things about the world where we would otherwise be unable to know anything at all.

So if there is no “proof”, then “equally founded in verifiable proof” is trivially true but useless. But if we substitute “evidence” for “proof”, then it becomes plain wrong: The leap from “not 100% sure” to “equally founded in verifiable evidence” is huge.

By considering all the evidence available to you, you can assign a likelihood to different hypotheses. Likelihood that it is a tomb: x. Likelihood that it is a granary: y. Likelihood that it is anything else: z = 1 - x - y.

If somebody’s estimate for x is ever exactly 1, they’re wrong. If their estimate for z is ever 0, they’re wrong. But the evidence says that x > y + z. By quite some margin, I would venture.

Different example:
So far, in the history of science, we have observed that objects (near the surface of planet Earth) fall when dropped. This has entered the scientific consensus as a “law of nature”. Various scientists, most notably Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, have provided increasingly elaborate theories about the details of how this happens.
Yet there is not a single shred of verifiable proof that the same will hold true the next time I drop something. Logic informs us that it all rests on the tacit assumption that the universe is, in fact, predictable and will stick to its apparent rules. There is no verifiable proof.

So, are you saying the “correct position” is that it is in fact unknown or unknowable whether gravity will continue to work tomorrow?
Are we to disregard the fact that all evidence tells us that it is highly unlikely that gravity will stop working tomorrow?

4 Likes
227

In our zoos, we feed all kinds of ugly and dangerous beasts where I am quite glad that their natural habitat is far away from my own.

Our alleged trolley here, by contrast, has been quite friendly and civil and has not attempted to eat anyone. So I don’t see why he shouldn’t be fed.

Also, his arguments share a common logical structure with arguments I’ve heard used in other contexts, by people who I know were honestly trying to figure things out, so I’m assuming good faith in this case, too.

Figuring out the exact difference between proof and evidence, and how the latter works, what we can and cannot know and when being 99,9999% sure is good enough is valuable in its own right. I think it’s a really helpful tool for everyone’s personal Baloney Detection Kit.

And I don’t think it’s like arguing about religion - after all, he’s stopping short of making up any claims to fill the void his “we can’t know this” arguments leave behind.

7 Likes
228

Not at all. I’m saying that both positions lack evidence but at one time or another were considered the truth by experts. The tomb evidence is circumstantial at best. 100% certainty never enters in to the consideration and is manufactured argument. This is what bothers me about the dogma of the tombs. The current crop of archaeologists present the tomb theory as if it we are 100% certain concerning its correctness which does not hold up to scrutiny.

Concerning your gravity example, we know that things fall. In more elaborate terms we know that all mass is attracted to all other mass. The effect of this attraction can be measured concretely. The theories of gravity concern the mechanism of this action and not whether the action itself is observable, repeatable, and real. To apply this to the current discussion would be to say that we know the pyramids exist. They can be measured concretely. The theory of their purpose is in question, not the fact of their existence.

Good assumption. I’m sincere in my position and will not enter in to an ad hominem discussion with those who dismiss by claiming ‘trolley’ or some other disparaging remark nor will I employ such dishonest tactic.

In regards to why I stay on this subject and keep responding to people who ask questions, I assure you I’m not attempting to string this out or anything like that. I just think it rude to not reply to people who ask honest questions or present honest disagreement which begs response. But the real reason I’m on this topic is because I’ve recognized in my self the comfort of complacency and how it leads to poor understanding. We like nice packages tied up in a bow. It comforts us to have answers to our questions. The problem comes when we decide we know the truth of a thing when what we really have are assumptions based on circumstance. This can lead to an end of serious inquiry in the subject. I’m ok with the uncomfortable but IMO correct position that we should treat the tomb theory as interesting and possible and the nature of the pyramids as unknown.

229

The plural of anecdote is not data.

230

You missed the point of my choosing this particular example - we have measured gravity’s effect in the past - it requires a technically unprovable leap of faith to draw conclusions about its future behaviour. The theories state that gravity won’t stop tomorrow, but we can never know. This is just my example for a theory (“gravity will still exist tomorrow”) which we can be very certain about but for which we still have no absolute proof.

I cannot reliably comment on what level of certainty archaeologists are really claiming. I would just assume that every archaeologist who claims 100% certainty just does not know probabilities.

We’ve got enough circumstantial evidence to pretty much rule out the granary hypothesis, and I think we also have enough circumstantial evidence to put the likelihood of the tomb hypothesis beyond 90%.

Thus, I end up being more comfortable with “the pyramids were tombs” than with “[the grain theory] seems just as likely as the tomb theory given the evidence I’ve been able to find.”

And as all scientific claims are essentially “not 100% certain”, this pattern of reasoning can be applied equally well everywhere. And if that tool, when put into well-meaning hands like yours, ends up being used to defend Ben Carson, just imagine what damage it would do in the wrong hands.
There is no conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer, we don’t really know how global warming comes about, and if pressed to answer right now, I can only give you circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution.
Or in other words, I just don’t believe in Teaching the Controversy.

2 Likes
231

And therein lies the debate.

1 Like
232

No fair! That’s not a troll, it’s a sea lion.

It’s deeply concerned with ethics in historiography.

7 Likes
233

Okay. I do not insist on that particular number, it’s just my personal estimate.
I’ll make a few weaker statements instead, to see if you still contradict them:

(a) The likelihood of the pyramids being designed granaries is less than 5%.
(b) The likelihood of the pyramids being designed as tombs is greater than 50% (i.e., it is more likely that they are tombs than that they are something else).
(c) From (a) and (b) it follows that the statement “both theories are equally supported by evidence” is just plain wrong.
(d) If the likelihood in (b) was 90% or higher, it would be reasonable to just state “the pyramids were tombs” without adding any qualifications every time. “Teaching the controversy” would just distort things.

Sigh. Long after GamerGate is forgotten, the internet will still enjoy this lasting legacy from the Defense Against The GamerGaters: One more blunt ad-personam weapon with which to avoid engaging in actual arguments.

4 Likes
234

Except there is no actual debate.

I can sigh too.

3 Likes
235

Perhaps that sealion should leave ethics in historiography to the historians… we do okay in that regard, mostly.

4 Likes
236

My first job was as a medical illustrator in a major hospital and research facility. I worked daily with surgeons and specialists.

They are just like everyone else, but they’ve achieved elite success in a very narrow, specialised and competitive sphere.

Often they have the wherewithal to understand that themselves, and a lot of them are really well grounded. But sometimes they end up believing they are intrinsically better at everything than everyone else. Those are the kind of people who end up dying in light plane crashes because they think they are naturally brilliant pilots.

I’ll let you guess where on the spectrum I think Ben Carson exists…

2 Likes
237

Without actual verifiable evidence we are engaging in conjecture rather than science. Or, to put it another way, any number we assign is pulled right out of our asses and any conclusions drawn from made up percentages aren’t worth a dime.

‘From (a) and (b) it follows’ is a false choice. There is also (c) something else (unknown) and (d) no conclusion can be drawn from the evidence available (unknowable)

Not when you consider that neither theory has actual evidence to support it.

I would say that teaching conjecture is a greater distortion. It also seems to me that “Teaching the controversy” is a label applied to my argument incorrectly and amounts to a straw man due to the present political climate in which religious zealots have decided to teach magic man hooey as “The Controversy” in regards to the origin of life. I’m not sure that applying the moniker of a religious argument to someone proffering an argument calling for rigorous skepticism makes sense.
In my view, teaching that they are tombs is closer to the faith based position than teaching what we actually do know about them which should be done without engaging in conjecture. It occurs to me that the problem may stem from the desire to state what they were for in the first place. There is no need to make a declarative statement regarding the nature of a thing for which the vital nature remains unknown other than to declare that the nature of the thing remains unknown. Or, in other words, teach the truth.

1 Like
238

I DECLARE TROLL

4 Likes
239

Consider what a troll really is and then take another look at your post

240

You. You are a troll. You are trolling this post purely to get attention.

Pyramids are tombs, or at the very least they were intended to be. That’s it.

3 Likes
241

Thanks for your informed opinion on the matter.

242

Just as informed as yours.

2 Likes
243

6 Likes
244

I once saw a moderator post on BB that said “attack ideas not people”

245

Well your idea is pretty much just “nu huh, but… i 'unno” so when you get that idea, come back to us.

3 Likes