I'll tell you, growing up working class and in contact with a lot of craftsmen: Carpenters;plumbers; electricians and masons, you get a profound respect for the limitations of engineers, architects etc. who get their training solely from schools.

Just one example: I discussed a new school building with a colleague once, and he described a conversation between the architect and a concrete worker regarding the building of a concrete spiral staircase.

The architect had drawn in this spiral staircase but had no idea how to build one, and was sweating bullets. "Not to worry", says the craftsman, "steps are this high, and this deep, now we just make a template  and mark off on the wall from one floor to the next."

That's a man highly educated in the field, who has no idea how things are done in practice. And while my understanding of this is based on anecdotal evidence I have no problem believing it applies to at least a portion of engineers.

It is not surprising to find engineers who have no idea how the pyramids are built, who are nevertheless arrogant enough to assume that if they don't understand it, then it can't have been done that way.

And to be honest, Charles, what you have there is a very small selection of engineers. If they say one thing and the other 90/95/99 percent of  engineers say the opposite, then the fact that they are engineers is not sufficient to make them credible.

It's the same as the tiring mantra about how "scientists" say there is no global warming while 90/95/99 percent say that there is in fact man-made climate change.  If they're opposed by the majority of the field, the fact that they are in the field does not lend them credibility.

"I'll tell you, growing up working class and in contact with a lot of craftsmen: Carpenters;plumbers; electricians and masons, you get a profound respect for the limitations of engineers, architects etc. who get their training solely from schools."

I am sure that works both ways.

"That's a man highly educated in the field, who has no idea how things are done in practice. And while my understanding of this is based on anecdotal evidence I have no problem believing it applies to at least a portion of engineers."

I don't think this is a valid example though.  A wise man can say when he doesn't know how to do something.  I think that may be the problem with the craftsmen you speak of... ignorance is bliss.

"It is not surprising to find engineers who have no idea how the pyramids are built, who are nevertheless arrogant enough to assume that if they don't understand it, then it can't have been done that way."

I don't recall the engineers in that documentary saying that.  But if you have enough engineers repeatedly saying that it should clue us in. The you have the other info I have that also indicates they are on the right track.

"And to be honest, Charles, what you have there is a very small selection of engineers. If they say one thing and the other 90/95/99 percent of  engineers say the opposite, then the fact that they are engineers is not sufficient to make them credible." 

That's true if that were the case.. but I don't know it to be.  That's a big if. But also, the majority usually isn't right...

"It's the same as the tiring mantra about how "scientists" say there is no global warming while 90/95/99 percent say that there is in fact man-made climate change.  If they're opposed by the majority of the field, the fact that they are in the field does not lend them credibility."

I disagree. It is usually the lone nut that revolutionizes science. Look at Einstein..  physics was in the toilet before he came along.  Then look when quantum mechanics took over. Einstein was the lone man in opposition then, too.  There are still many people that think Einstein was right and we are on the wrong path.

••

Slaves did not build the pyramids. That is a popular misconception long ago demolished by archeology.

"But also, the majority usually isn't right..."

No. The majority isn't always right. But saying it usually isn't right is crap. Science is all about ruthlessly examining new theories until a new consensus is formed. The majority is usually right. And when new ideas pop up and their methodology and facts are solid, then after intense scrutiny, if their ideas hold water they become a part of the new consensus. Science is about improving and expanding knowledge and being right within the limits of what is known is different from being wrong.

"Einstein was the lone man in opposition then, too.  There are still many people that think Einstein was right and we are on teh wrong path."

When Quantum Physics came along, Einstein didn't think it was right, that is true. But rather than scoff at it, he expressed a few simple tests where if QP failed those tests, it would be disproven (at least in part) and if it passed, it would be further substantiated. When later they were able to actually carry out such tests, QP passed which means that Einstein contributed to legitimizing QP. Because he was a scientist and he played fair. He sought out faults and devised tests rather than simply declaring "I am Einstein and I say it doesn't work" and leaving it at that.

And it's not "the lone nut" who revolutionizes science. Like Newton said :"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Science is a cumulative endeavour, led forward by brilliant individuals, but they don't work in a vacuum. When Darwin formulated the theory of evolution, he was in competition with others with similar ideas. All the way up to Edison, you'll find lots of people converging on a truth from different angles.  

And once they find what they're looking for, if the science is sound, results can be duplicated, facts checked etc.

See, you're using all these buzzwords and slogans to suggest that because "your" ideas are not mainstream, they are automatically "more true".

While some visionary people may be dismissed as "lone nuts", it is far more likely that if someone is dismissed as a lone nut then it's because that's what they are.

You toss of cultish buzzwords about your own specialness and the martyrial plight of the ideas you subscribe to, which is a warning signal to any sceptic in the vicinity.

"No. The majority isn't always right. But saying it usually isn't right is crap."

It usually isn't the MOST right.  It's usually the individual on the cutting edge.

"And when new ideas pop up and their methodology and facts are solid, then after intense scrutiny, if their ideas hold water they become a part of the new consensus."

Something doesn't have to be definitvely proven rgiht to be right though. Many times theories were right it just took time to prove them.  This is why it is not wise to dismiss something out of hand.

"He sought out faults and devised tests rather than simply declaring "I am Einstein and I say it doesn't work" and leaving it at that."

But he did seek a more definitive model even though the majority was against him.  He thought something was fundamentally wrong with the majorities conclusions.

"And it's not "the lone nut" who revolutionizes science. Like Newton said :"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

But the shoulders of giants are past lone nuts who carried the majority.

"Science is a cumulative endeavour, led forward by brilliant individuals, but they don't work in a vacuum. When Darwin formulated the theory of evolution, he was in competition with others with similar ideas. All the way up to Edison, you'll find lots of people converging on a truth from different angles."

It's really funny you brought up Darwin. what happened to Darwin?  He found that island of freakish animals that evolved on their own.. this is EXACTLY what I think happened to a group of humans isolated on an island - Atlantis.. and developed on their own bizarre and unique path. I suspect this is why they were so advanced with stone work and maybe this ideal setting allowed them to create a kind of ideal super society. I suspect the Giza pyramids were a satellite outpost because of its perfect location for making their fuel production facility.

"And once they find what they're looking for, if the science is sound, results can be duplicated, facts checked etc."

That's true.. but it doesn't mean they weren't right before it was proven right. And the majority wasn't at the same pace with the individual. Many people can contribute and pool facts.. but it seems to be the lone individual that leads the way. The trick is finding them.. which gets to the point of that quote I repeat - 3 phases - that should be avoided.

"See, you're using all these buzzwords and slogans to suggest that because "your" ideas are not mainstream, they are automatically "more true"."

I am just saying that because my ideas or research isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's wrong. Especially just because the majority hasn't caught up yet.

"While some visionary people may be dismissed as "lone nuts", it is far more likely that if someone is dismissed as a lone nut then it's because that's what they are."

True..but that fear of following the nuts seems to also prevent people from accepting the lone nuts who are right. The moral of the story to me is to not let your skepticism blind you and be very careful what you discount.

"You toss of cultish buzzwords about your own specialness and the martyrial plight of the ideas you subscribe to, which is a warning signal to any sceptic in the vicinity."

You certainly have a flair for the dramatic, Knut.  All I can say is I go through this a lot.. I see things before the majority often.  I'm not always right.. but enough to trust my instincts. it just happens to be one of my strengths.  But I don't blame people for not buying it.  Even with my strength of "intuition" it took a miracle for me to see this.  The way I look at it is what do people have to lose?  At the very least someone here might get some cool story ideas.

"I am just saying that because my ideas or research isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's wrong. "

No, what you're saying is that because your ideas and "research" isn't mainstream, you're right.

What I'm saying is that the ideas you present about the pyramids are based on lies, distortions and misinformation, and the way in which you argue them shows a lack of reliable methodology and a severe confirmation bias linked to a need to identify yourself as special, inedependent and "thinking outside the box" by aligning yourself with a convenient "fringe" theory.

Nothing about the way you present your "case" suggests intellectual rigor, healthy scepticism, a respect for facts, an understanding of methodology or indeed an open mind. 

"No, what you're saying is that because your ideas and "research" isn't mainstream, you're right."

Where did I say this? Or are you saying this for me? lol

"What I'm saying is that the ideas you present about the pyramids are based on lies, distortions and misinformation, and the way in which you argue them shows a lack of reliable methodology and a severe confirmation bias linked to a need to identify yourself as special, inedependent and "thinking outside the box" by aligning yourself with a convenient "fringe" theory"

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.. but I don't see how you can make that assumption when you haven't done the research I have. You seem to just be guessing..

"Nothing about the way you present your "case" suggests intellectual rigor, healthy scepticism, a respect for facts, an understanding of methodology or indeed an open mind."

I think you have the lack of open mind backwards.  IF I didn't have an open mind I wouldn't be looking to discuss this with others.  It is you assuring me I am wrong without doing any of the research.  

It seems very comical that you question my intellectual rigor when you aren't even familiar with the subject matter.

It sounds very hypocritical. In fact you seem guilty of every point you accuse me of.. it sounds like you are projecting.