SC - Trenchers Oh my!/Edgar Cayce

[Decker, Terry D.]

Are they "opinions" or "working hypotheses?"  It is fairly common in
scientific analysis to create a set of hypotheses to explain what you are
looking at, then change them as the data improves or changes.  Percival
Lowell considered the "canals" of Mars as a sign of possible inhabitation, a
working hypothesus.  Later investigation proved him wrong. 

I've got a nice selection of psycho-ceramic science.  Much of it is
interesting rhetoric based on sophistry and careful manipulation of the
facts.  The theory of the "hollow earth" beloved by fans of Burrough's
Pellucidar, false.  Wegner's theory of continental drift, true.  Goodman's
theory of the Sea-Kings, maybe.  And so it goes.

Cayce, I tend to set aside as unprovable.  Fell has some interesting and
very plausible theories in the Diffusionist camp, but he tries to make every
archeological anomaly fit his theory and overstates his case.

The "academic community" is a pretty big loop.  I wouldn't expect a particle
physicist to have the same expertise as a medieval historian, and they are
certainly both academics.  Academics can certainly be as blind, ignorant and
arrogant as the rest of us.  However, it is unfair to characterize the
entire community based on the actions and opinions of the individual.
Rather than complain about academics, we should be specific, which
academics, what publications, published when, and how modified since
publication.  It is not as if every non-academic believes thet medieval food
was properly spiced and tasty.

I would point out Lehner did not change areas, he was working in and still
works in Egyptology.  He modified his ideas and opinions within that area.
Since there is almost two decades between his work for the Cayce Foundation
and beginning his current work at Giza, the change is not as abrupt as you
make it out.  As for changing his interpretations to fit the needs of his
backers, I see no particular evidence of that.  He is something of a showman
and does have the ability to make his subject understandable and interesting
to non-specialists, which translates to television shows and money.  Being
able to raise funds is a required skill for professors in academia and
Lehner has mastered that portion of his art.

Evidence is required to demonstrate the possibility of any idea.  Lowell,
Lehner, Cayce, Goodman, Fell, let's see the proof.  Being the definitive
scholar in an area doesn't exempt you from demonstrating the facts and logic
supporting your arguments.  If it did, we would still believe in
Aristotelian science.  Remember to ask, "documentation, please." 

Bear




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are missing my point completely. The point was is he a leap frog jumping

from one thing to another or changing his 'opinions' in mid stride (which 
appears to be the case) numerous times, etc. 

If you want to compare libraries volume to volume, I would say that mine 
contains more volumes dealing with the 'fringe' sciences than does most 
peoples on this list. I am a staunch supporter of the theories put forth in 
'America, BC,' for instance. I was a member of the Cayce Foundation for 
years. I am horrified that the supposed academic community still refers to 
medieval food as highly spiced and consisting of rotten meat when they
should 
know better by now. 

If you can trust a person who goes from being an expert in one area to being

an expert in another opposing idea almost overnight then that's cool. I 
don't. This scholar is not the definitive scholar in his field so 
corroborating evidence seems to be in order, IMO, to support his ideas. I 
don't doubt his archeological findings in the least what I find questionable

his seeming ability to interpret those findings according to whatever 
criteria his current financial sources require. 

Ras 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>