Sunday, July 19, 2009


Archeologist say ...

Scholar say...

Dr. Smarty Pants says...

Professor Bullwinkel says ...

We never cease to see people write some assertion then throw in some reference as to what some expert said.

Coming from the lips of an "expert" gives the assertion credence?

Evoking the title of an "expert" is a never ending argument why some thing is a fact.


Scholarship: knowledge resulting from study and research in a particular field.

Scholar: a learned person who specializes in a particular field

You or any one who studies a particular field is a scholar. Most people I know of who are called scholars are people who get their knowledge from what some one else wrote or said.

A scholar in effect is little more than one who puppets information they collect from others.

Because it comes from a "Scholar" neither makes the information true or false.

"Scholars say ... " is a statement the person(s) saying these things, collects information of authors.


He is a professor of .... She is a Dr. of ....

Lots of people write some thesis and try to give credibility to their assertion by evoking the name and title of some professor/dr.

Adding the names of universities to the research is also a method to fluff up one's claims.

NO Dr. or Professor is the author of 1/100,000th of the information in any university.

Through years, thousands of people collect tid bits of information from sources of interest.

A publisher combines that information into a book on those subjects.

A student attends a university and learns the information/techniques created by others.

If the student hangs out long enough and pays enough money, they can receive a hundred thousand dollars a year, teaching students the information collected by book publishers who got that information from the original authors (most which are dead).

Being a professor or Dr. only means that some one has been exposed to a whole bunch of information of others.


French, math, history, chemistry, art ... there are hundreds of available subjects in universities.

To get a degree, one must take a whole bunch of subjects.

Each subject may be divided in courses (segments).

One book in one course may then be divided into other subjects.

No topic of investigation requires a professorship, nor does it require a college degree, nor a high school diploma.


If you wanted to be a dairy farmer and learn how to pasteurize milk, French, math, history, chemistry, art .. what some professor or dr. said is a moot point.

Though the professor may have had to learn this information along the line, it is a trivial fraction of his learning.

If you went to a farm that had been in the dairy business, a high school drop out working there could give you the same information as any professor.

The fact that some Dr. / Professor testifies to any thing does not give it any validity.



Archeologist, Scholars, Drs, professors who do not get their information by their own discoveries are nothing but puppets who repeat hearsay information from books.

Any professor who receive hearsay information in books can only repeat the hearsay stories they paid to learn.

If it took a professor 1000 hours to become a professor and 2 minutes of that 1000 hours was to learn how to compute stress...

If the question at hand was how to compute stress, then 999 hours and 58 minutes of that education is irrelevant to the question at hand.


Professors are no different than any one else, except for the fact of all the stuff they had to learn to become a professor.

In the year 2009 there is a TV program titled "Are you smarter than a 5th grader"

The object of the game is to answer the same questions taught from grades 1 to 5.

The prize 1 million dollars.

So far there have been dozens of university grads and an astronaut that could not answer the grade school questions.

People who graduate from college only remember a trivial fraction of what they learn.

The fact that one went to college does not mean they are right about any thing. It only means they had to pay out big bucks and rack out their brains to learn things that have been forgotten.


Here I inquire about the evidence of the existence of Hyksos in ancient Egypt.

I have an array of different questions.

If you reply to any of my questions and vindicate it with what some expert says:

Most of the time the "experts" they attribute information are abstract, unidentified... The experts say.. what expert, where, show me where this expert says this...

Archeologist say ...

Scholar say...

Dr. Smarty Pants says...

Professor Bullwinkel says ...

#1 Show me a dagger found in Egypt that was made by a Hyksos.

Reply it is a fact because Professor Bullwinkel says ...

Either professor Bullwinkle says it because he is repeating hearsay information he learned in a class given by another professor who repeated their hearsay information ... OR professor Bullwinkel can tell us such information as

* where the dagger is held

* how it was tested

* who tested it

* when it was tested

* who found it

Quoting a Dr. / Professor who just puppets hearsay information gives nothing any credibility.

Quoting "experts" can be useful only when those "experts" supply factual information that can be verified.

If any archeologist/professor says any thing is true with out the facts to validate those claims, they are no different than any one who reads the endless web sites of gossip and repeats their hearsay information as factual information.

The only thing different in any professor/archeologist who publishes the hearsay information of others as fact, then a high school graduate who collects gossip and creates a thesis, is the professors spent thousands of dollars to create their fairy stories.


If some archeologist/Egyptologist/professor ... says Hyksos introduced new musical instruments to Egypt:

* They say it because they are repeating hearsay they were forced to learn or

* They say it because they have first hand knowledge of such musical instruments.

(Part a) Archeologist/professor say ....

(Part b) OK, now show us the evidence the archeologist/professor provides to verify their claims.

If you respond to my challenges and use some "experts" to make your argument, fine. Then go to your expert's work and show the factual information they based their claims on.