There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw said:

This is a logical fallacy. Show me where I said I expect people to take what I presented as fact. I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not. That it should be looked at with the same level of openness as someone would to anything. Not assume its BS before its even looked at.

So you have been sitting there stewing and laughing at your own strawmen you have created in your head over what you believe I am saying and not what I am actually saying lol.

Click to expand...

You need to stop claiming commentary that you don't like as logical fallacies or strawmen. It doesn't make your look smarter than you think you are. And we don't need to invent anything when your own words are all the evidence we need to support our words about you. In fact, your own words of "I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not." is exactly what I'm talking about.

We can easily say something is BS when we look at it because it IS BS. Which exactly what we see from our contributions to your own thread.

stevevw said:

This is a logical fallacy. Show me where I said I expect people to take what I presented as fact. I have merely argue that it should be accepted full stop regardless of whether its correct or not. That it should be looked at with the same level of openness as someone would to anything. Not assume its BS before its even looked at.

So you have been sitting there stewing and laughing at your own strawmen you have created in your head over what you believe I am saying and not what I am actually saying lol.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is that if the ancients possessed technical skills we don't know about those skills must have been acquired by other than the usual way technical skills are acquired.

When @sjastro wrote:

I bet many of the respondents to your posts have been exposed this nonsense beforehand such as being familiar with Erik Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods.

Click to expand...

He was talking about me and himself and @Stopped_lurking and @BCP1928 and @Warden_of_the_Storm and anyone else who has fallen off from this never ending thread. This assessment seems reasonable.

stevevw said:

Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a jib against you , it was a description of us (the not you).

stevevw said:

This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

Click to expand...

The long duration of this thread ahs clearly demonstrated that the sources you use are all drenched in pseudoscience. As for conspiracies, you can stop making conspiracy claims any time you want.

stevevw said:

You do this a lott. You pick out one aspect and ignore the rest. Between those links they clear state that this is a science wide problem and not just within the medical sector. So you are making a strawman and misrepresentation of what the articles are actually saying.

Click to expand...

If the problem is especially bad in archaeology it should have been relatively easy to provide a link which show this.

stevevw said:

Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary. This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with equating your nonsense with Erik Von Daniken's book?
If you haven't read the book then stop making stupid personal based opinions trying to pass them off as facts.
Alternatively if you have read the book explain why it's conclusion of aliens being the cause is less valid than the use of transcendental knowledge which also produced zero evidence.

stevevw said:

Do you mean like you just literally did lol. You cheery picked the one article on bias in peer review that mentions the medical sector to make out that this was only about the medical sector.

Click to expand...

Anyone with a half a brain would not use two examples of peer review issues in medicine as an example of a problem in archaeology.

stevevw said:

Just just equated everything I said as quack and offered no evidence. But even so just dismissing it all as conspiracy is itself a disqualifier. Thus your arguements are from personal incredulity and ignorance because you have obviously ignore most of what is said and you know it.

Your doing it again. Assuming that what I have said is conspiracy or quack. What have I said that is not within the scope of todays sciences.

Click to expand...

What hope do you have in being able to put forward a coherent argument when you do not understand the meaning of words like conspiracy?
This is the very argument from ignorance you constantly engage in and project on others.

stevevw said:

Don't confuse the spectualtion in trying to workout how the ancients gained their knowledge through their experiences and beliefs with science.

Lets establish a basis as to where you draw the line. It seems you do not believe in anything but empiricle science as to what is knowledge of the world and reality. Is that right.

So therefore any spectualtion about transcedent knowledge such as through cultural beliefs or direct conscious experiences is unreal and but rather make believe. Is that right.

Where have I lies. Or is this lie concocted based on the many strawmen you have created and attributed to me.

Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish, you have turned this thread into a lie fest by deliberately ignoring every piece of counter evidence given and then claiming no such evidence exists. It's called lying by omission.
As result your lies a more than a distraction they completely undermine your efforts in putting forward a coherent argument in defending what is basically pseudoscience.

stevevw said:

Another logical fallacy. This time an either/or ie criticising Hawass or peer review means attacking science and archeology altogether. It does not follow.

It is well known that Hawss holding a lot of power and authority has used his position to control the information coming out. It is well know that there is bias and gatekeeping.

It seems reasonable in a debate about the insistence of using specific gatekeeping rules that the credibility of such is brought up. Its rather hypocritical considering I have spent most of this thread having to defend the sources I have linked. Another example and red flag of bias.

Click to expand...

This is another example of lying, since you were unable to provide a single example of unethical peer review in archaeology, you decide to discredit the entire field on the behaviour of a single individual.
Whether the individual is actually guilty of your accusations is another story.

This thread is not about you having to defend your sources but your disgraceful level of dishonesty in having to make a point.

One more post exchange.

stevevw said:

I am going off the same article and it clearly says that Pierre Protzen had done tests. Just after his reference is linked it says "Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques".

Click to expand...

This is not from Protzens own writing. From the source I believe you are using:

"Even though their experiments have been able to shed some light on the techniques that, even with very rudimentary tools, could have been used to craft perfectly planar surfaces, accurate right angles and millimeter wide joints, many aspects of ancient Andean stone cutting and architecture remain unexplained."

They are clearly not talking about any shining surfaces here.

If this is the text you meant to quote, stop being deceptive. You failed to quote a pertinent part.

If you meant some other text please link it.

stevevw said:

That clearly implies they had done tests to support their findings. In fact the author was referencing them as support that despite experiements being done by Protzen and Stella Nair questions still remained. He was using Protzen as a credible source. You referred to him as a credible source when you referred to him. Otherwise why refer to him.

Click to expand...

Because you referred to him. I asked questions about his view and implicitly why you referenced him.