10-31-2014, 02:51 PM
Casius
There are some basics in logic and science.
"Cherry peaking" is very diferent from exposing a phenomenon. If I´m talking about the existance of sleeves in muscular armours, I will logically not need to show lace lingerie. Cherry peaking will be hiding some other images or information contradicting the existance of sleeves in some muscular armour, something that I´m not doing.
I allready provide data, and some remains. this is my "Burden of proof".
Probably you know what is an Hypothesis:
Is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Experimental research show if hypothesis may be considered as a plausible explanation or not.
There are diferent things that you can claim on an hypothesis.
1st .- Denay the existance of the phenomenon.
If this is your point, you don´t need to use other logical aproach. The sculptures showing sleeves don´t exist.
2nd If your aproach is that they exist, you can provide alternative explanations to the phenomenon that suits better it.
You have already provide an alternative explanation, your approach is discrediting the original source:
Apparently you do not know these well established facts: Most Roman art is copied from Hellenistic art. Especially poses, but also loads of equipment. Much of Roman art recurs to older modes and types of display. Roman art is highly anachronistic.
After showing you an image with actually Roman equipment that can be traced through archeological data, you said:
"then were "spiced up" with Roman items
This contradicts your previous statement. So you have already tried to provide a nagative burden of proof
But as long as this proved to be false, you will have to provide another one.
All hypothesis opens a debate. Next step is to produce a working model.
After understanding how it can work we have better chances to find remains that can match the phenomenon. This is the base for science work.
Very different is to propose an hypotesis than to make an statement.
An statement have to be 100 % demostrable.
You are making an statement on the hypotesis, this is that can be true. You have to demonstrate it.
There are some basics in logic and science.
"Cherry peaking" is very diferent from exposing a phenomenon. If I´m talking about the existance of sleeves in muscular armours, I will logically not need to show lace lingerie. Cherry peaking will be hiding some other images or information contradicting the existance of sleeves in some muscular armour, something that I´m not doing.
I allready provide data, and some remains. this is my "Burden of proof".
Probably you know what is an Hypothesis:
Is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Experimental research show if hypothesis may be considered as a plausible explanation or not.
There are diferent things that you can claim on an hypothesis.
1st .- Denay the existance of the phenomenon.
If this is your point, you don´t need to use other logical aproach. The sculptures showing sleeves don´t exist.
2nd If your aproach is that they exist, you can provide alternative explanations to the phenomenon that suits better it.
You have already provide an alternative explanation, your approach is discrediting the original source:
Apparently you do not know these well established facts: Most Roman art is copied from Hellenistic art. Especially poses, but also loads of equipment. Much of Roman art recurs to older modes and types of display. Roman art is highly anachronistic.
After showing you an image with actually Roman equipment that can be traced through archeological data, you said:
"then were "spiced up" with Roman items
This contradicts your previous statement. So you have already tried to provide a nagative burden of proof
But as long as this proved to be false, you will have to provide another one.
All hypothesis opens a debate. Next step is to produce a working model.
After understanding how it can work we have better chances to find remains that can match the phenomenon. This is the base for science work.
Very different is to propose an hypotesis than to make an statement.
An statement have to be 100 % demostrable.
You are making an statement on the hypotesis, this is that can be true. You have to demonstrate it.
