This is my POINT. There was no experiment so there was no science by OUR definitions.
So how did they invent agriculture and cities?
Cities don’t require science, just engineering.
Agriculture could be a combination of primitive science merged with trial and error.
You don’t actually seem to have a point, here. No one calls the Ancient Egyptians stupid, (even if you like to pretend that Egyptologists do). However, it is also true that the notion that humanity can learn new things only through science is dumb.
So far, you have misused the word metaphysics, misused the word science, made odd claims about what Egyptologists claim (while refusing to actually quote them), made up odd translations of ancient Egyptian texts that only you can figure out, (despite having no background in actually studying the language), and have made odd claims about what modern society believes that is in direct conflict with actual modern beliefs.
You are really straining to ensure that no one should ever believe your claims.
Hey, very few Egyptologists still say “they mustta used ramps”. Most will say we believe they used ramps or our best guess is they used ramps. In fact in recent years I now hear themn admit they don’t know how they were built and there’s actually more than one possibility.
They also aren’t so quick to pull out the “cultural context” weapon when there’s an alt in the house. Almost every single new theory that has come along in five years involves using water as a motive force. The tactics employed by Egyptoilogists are no longer very effective since everyone knows what’s coming. The field seems to be almost in disarray that goes beyond the political turmoil.
I’m hardly winning but Egyptologists are scrambling to explain why the facts don’t match up with ramps. They are making missteps unfortunately that reflect poorly on them. They’ll have little choice but to actually run scientific tests which is all I wanted all along. Ramps will be disproven and my theory will have a little more support. For now all we can say is that ramps are debunked (whether experts agree or not) and that the word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age.
It’s almost like I can draw a happy face on the warp core breech. 
Which is science for the real world.
Which is also engineering. Trial and error is not approaching a problem randomly. It is observing the problem; proposing a solution; trying it, either IRL or on paper or computer screen; and analyzing what was good and bad about the solution.
No wonder Howard on Big Bang Theory gets no respect, with all you science elitists putting him down because what he does has real-world consequences. 
What you mean, “we,” Kemo Sabe?
Nope, the only evidence shown so far is that you do not even know what debunked is, and neither how the concept works in the real world.
As pointed before since you will never do the proper steps to convince all researchers that you have the truth[sup]TM[/sup] you will only be able to think that you are making progress when in reality yours is just an exercise in continuing to forget the errors that you have committed meaning only that you will continue to commit them elsewhere, forever.
Not convincing at all.
So to sum up, you think that Egyptologists’ big failing is refusing to accept that ancient Egyptians were just way ahead of us in brain power? All this talk about stinky feet bumpkins is not that you think Egyptologists look down on the pyramid builders, but rather that they foolishly to think themselves equal to them?
There’s glory for you.
It is not persuasive to simply assign random values to words and then mix up the definitions at whim. If you choose to join cladking in his random definition generator, you will not convey meaning in your statements any more than he does.
I said nothing about trial and error being random, so that straw man fails.
Let’s pretend for a moment that I had no evidence at all of any sort. No concordances, no consistencies, and no predictive capabilities. Maybe I came to my theory in a dream or while channeling Cayce or my dead dog. Maybe it was just an undone potato or a fleeting whimsy. No matter how hard I worked and researched I never found any support.
But during this research I found several flaws in Egyptological theory and methodology. I found that there was important science not being done and evidence being destroyed. I can show the four foundational assumptions of Egyptology are wrong or unevidenced. “Cultural context” is sample error created by the assumption the ancient burial practices reflect the same culture that later had similar burial practices. The word “ramp” isn’t even arttested from the great pyramid building age. There is no direct evidence of any sort great pyramids were intended as tombs. It’s impossible for superstition to make people strong or to give them the knowledge to perform engineering/ science. These four are the biggies but it’s also been shown the PT are a book of ritual rather than incantation.
Should we all tolerate science not being done because Egyptology obviously has everything under control? Should we all stand back as they continue to disturb the site trying to prove their baseless ideas?
Isn’t searching for answers always been a part of what it means to be human?
Humans vary. I have close relatives that are very similar and that are very different. While all Egyptologists are clever somne are much more clever than others. Some of the best may have graduated near the bottom of their class and some of the worst near the top. We are not only different but there are hundreds of parameters on which we are different.
I suspect on average we are slightly less clever today. In effective cleverness we are much less clever but we don’t need to be so effectively clever because we have the tool of modern science and its technology. They applied focused knowledge to everything and we apply diffused knowledge to narrow specialties like Egyptology. Our techniques are effective in the real world in advancing knowledge if not individual understanding.
Obviously the average Egyptologist is more clever than the average Egyptian however he isn’t more clever than the average professional Egyptian scientist; the priests. I’m sure we can all agree that the average Egyptian, even the lowliest farm hands, knew much more about how they built the pyramids than all the Egyptologists put together. If you could go back and ask him he could describe the exact configuration of the ramps, or at least he could if he thought like an Egyptologist.
Their big failing is they jumped to a conclusion so fast that they can’t get off of it. The PT wasn’t discovered until decades after the heiroglypic meanings were discovered so when they translated the PT they just assumed it meant the same thing later similar writings meant.
It really doesn’t matter who’s more clever because cleverness itself is an event rather than a condition. The lowliest worker might have an important idea and the greatest scientist/ priest might work a lifetime without a breakthrough. There is an element of luck in the invention of ideas. It’s mostly knowledge and mostly visceral knowledge but there still needs to be a trigger like an apple hitting you in the head. Some people wouldn’t even notice if they had an idea or would dismiss it as an undone potato or an halucination.
No need to pretend. That’s exactly the situation you find yourself in today.
Define “clever”
I solved the PT by solving the meaning of individual words through context. Everytime a word is used it gains definitional and connotatrive properties.
The PT was uniquely susceptible to solution by this process because every single word had only a single meaning. Every thing had three words but every word described only a single thing. Meaning is in context. It is a metaphysical language just as a few 19th century linguists proposed;
I don’t know. There has to be some mental activity beyond language that sets humans apart from animals and there’s no such thing as the condition of intelligence. I’m proposing that this mental activity could be called “cleverness” and is an event rather than a condition. We experience cleverness as the arisal of ideas in the mind. “Cleverness” is the quantity and quality of these ideas which result chiefly through visceral knowledge.
There is such a thing as “intelligence” but it’s of little value in terms of what people percieve it to be. For most practical purposes it might be better to just pretend it doesn’t exist at all.
So it seems perfectly natural to you that we live in a world where 100’s of thousands of men spent entire careers dragging stones up ramps and despite having a mountain of evidence to prove it the word “ramp” isn’t even attested!
I suppose you also believe there are infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.
Why not suppose it-it wouldn’t be any more ridiculous or totally without evidence than anything else you’ve supposed in this thread.
Ramps, huh? Cool.
The reality is that you cannot even pretend, right away you go back to what is not science at all.
So far, there has really no good evidence coming from you that is happening, time and time again you are only using straw men against Egyptologists.
Again, only to you, not even the cites you used from the proponents of ancient aliens supported your ideas.
The posters that criticized your flight of fancy translations show that you can not convince other even of that.
No, we should not but you need science to do so; but also you are not “we”, what you have is pseudo science and weird metaphysics, not science or physics. To counter science you need to do science, and I already showed that you are all thumbs regarding what to do regarding research and the use of tools of modern science.
As it was shown many times, you are the one making baseless accusations and shows truly gross ignorance of geysers, misrepresentation of ancient alien proponents that you cited that in reality do not support your ideas, you use monumental straw men, and you do not have a clue of when chickens entered the picture.
It is clearer to me that many humans also champion ignorance thanks to ideology and religion. You are really just pushing all that.
In my journey trough life when I was a kid I was attracted to ancient aliens, ESP, UFO’s etc.
I got better in my late teens. I essentially discovered that one big part of being human is to also fall for gut feelings that in reality are lies and that science does help you overcome those biases.
“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” (Attributed to Albert Einstein.)
Thing is that many of the ones that you are attempting to discredit had similar journeys, they also had to overcome their “common” sense and some had a harder time with this, their own religious and previous bad ideas about ancient Egypt had to be overcome when faced with evidence.
You have not yet overcome lots of your “common” sense gut feelings yet, as shown you still depend a lot from the sources that press for ancient aliens or for the gods of the chariots. You need to get away from armchair research and that “feelie” world.
Even if these things are true they do nothing to prove your theory. You can be just as wrong as the others. Proving that the moon is not made of cheese does nothing to support the theory that it is made of peanut butter.
Since you have such a vague grasp on the concept, and can’t define it in any significant way, why do you presume to be able to measure the “cleverness” of members of a civilization of which you know so little about? Let alone compare it to current humans to the degree where you can now rank them?
From Blackadder:
Of course you are right.
But there’s a huge difference here. I am claiming that I found these problems by coming to see the totality of the evidence. This would mean nothing as well except I can identify the specific issues and how they arose. I can point at the evidence right in front of our eyes that been invisible and misinterpreted. If I’m right that Egyptological methodology was illegitimate then it follows there’s a high degree of possibility that I’m right about some of my other observations. Just asyou can’t turn a stone box into a sarcophagus by mere words you can’t make a 100,000 ton system that would work as a water collection device with proof it was used go away with mere words. Reality doesn’t bend to the will of the observer nor to extrapolation of scientific evidence. We merely observe nature and it is the anomalies that are usually the source for ideas about how it works. When an individual observes something that isn’t explained by current theory he finds the reason and humanity progresses.
There’s nothing wrong with science but there’s a lot wrong with the way it is taught. Metaphysics (definitions and axioms) need a great deal more attention and the nature of observation needs more emphasis. The last part of the scientific process should be metaphysical implications which might have a subheading for technological implications. We all need to undersatand that we only know the result of experiments and not all of nature. We have very little more understanding of the nature of gravity today than Imhotep did. Most people today get the concept of gravity wrong each time they speak of it but Imhotep could not.