Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:29:46 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: evading evidence

Bernard R Ortiz-de-Montellano wrote:
> 
> Dear lurkers,
> 
> Please notice that, as usual, instead of admitting error or refuting the
> key piece of evidence, my interlocutors shift the ground to an attack on my
> motives or psyche. Mr. Thomas refuses to admit that Diop is flat wrong in
> claiming that 1,460 years is the time interval between two heliacal rises
> of Sirius, when in fact Sirius rises heliacally every year. This
> fundamental error invalidates all the rest of Diop's posturing.

I disagree, and the original posts are there for all lurkers who
wish to see why.  I grow very bored with point/counterpoint when
repeated more than once.  Let's move on...

Regards,

PS.  The *semantic* question whether "heliacal rise" refers to the
1460-year periodicity when the New Year coincides between the
two calendars, or to the annual event, is not so important as
the *substantive* question as to what is implied by the 1460-year
periodicity if such was known by the Egyptians.  If this periodicity
was known by the Egyptians, as implied by Diop, presumbaly based
on the double-dating that is known to have gone on, then it is
indeed a puzzle as to how they came to that knowledge.  It must
either be empirical or theoretical, or both, as I said in the post
which precipitated this exchange.  Neither principal hypothesis
has been asserted as fact, only as indicative of impressive
achievement at a time very early in history, and indicative 
also of a settled culture spanning thousands of years, during
which time one would expect the scholar/priests of the society
to have developed knowledge systems of the theoretical and
speculative sort, not merely of the empirical, "play it by ear"
sort.  That is all.  It is a question of weighing the considerations
when confronted by claims, as in this case, that the Egyptian
science was purely "empirical", and it is to the Greeks we owe
"theoretical" science.  I tend to agree with Diop that the more
reasonable inference, considering all the evidence, is that the
Egyptian achievements were fully self-aware and of a theoretical
nature.  You are welcome to disagree, but harping on a possible
misuse of the term "heliacal rising" does not go to the core
contentions at issue.  I do not skirt your contentions, I merely
see them as "tangential, in any case repetitive".  Go to the core,
and you'll certainly hold my attention.

Contents | Previous | Next