(02-02-2026, 03:50 PM)eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps I am mis-understanding. Was the list not a set of examples perceived to have been "adjusted" in a specific way for an agenda, along with some unanswered questions that the other side chooses not to answer? I was pointing out how many of those questions, even if answered, do not get to the core of the issue at hand (and that many of the questions are posed in ways that do not allow an answer without seeing it as a contrived explanation)
As I've said earlier -- and you also said indirectly by referring to "normal science" -- it is indeed natural to fill in some gaps with speculative explanation. But I think that his point (at least part of it) is that there is a practice by opponents of his theory to not only come up with plausible explanations for various discrepencies (in the counter-theory), but to twist some facts as needed to do so. And to do this persistently regardless of what evidence - or how much of it-- is presented. If it does not align with the standard version of the story (i.e. the 15th century theory), then just devise yet another explanation to save the theory. But the aim of speculations within the "story" for a theory should be to assess if there are plausible explanations for a discrepency -- not to just save a theory (nor to act as evidence for a theory,)
(02-02-2026, 03:50 PM)eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wasn't trying to say that proto57 was literally saying "that's why its a forgery" for each of the points. I was trying to say that if you were to do so that it wouldn't lead anywhere helpful for most of those questions, and that posing those issues in that way do not help in getting to the truth of the matter. I probably didn't do a good job explaining what I meant.
No, you obviously weren't suggesting that anyone literally said "that's why". But the point is that your argument is asymmetric. The examples that proto57 listed were dealing with potential inconsistencies affecting the standard (genuine 15th century) theory and the speculative explanations that are put forth for each. But you then list examples that are not discrepencies in the MFT theory, but rather statements of his evidence -- and you then apply the "that's why" phrase to them as if the two sets of examples are of the same kind.
You are essentially pulling a 'switcharoo' to equate the two different things, And conveniently implying in the process that each piece of evidence is being claimed to support his theory all on its own, which is a misrepresentation.