if the Egyptologists make the narration of the Egyptian chronology coincide with the monumental buildings of the pyramids for reasons of coherence of their speeches, no material and/or convincing scientific evidence allows us to be completely convinced of this. Stones cannot be dated with Carbon-14 and no organic material was found in pyramids.

@Graffito: dating the stones would be pointless since they are millions of years older than when they were cut up for construction. Dating the pyramids was based on carbon samples from their tombs etc.

@Fizz: no organic tomb material was found in Giza pyramids. So the dating only relies on inferences made by archeologists.

@Graffito: youtube.com/watch?v=TDRccJSRzdg ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

this question is about an eggshell and in my opinion "was organic material found in the Giza pyramids?" is a separate question

@Fizz: the video illustrates the Radiocarbon dates of old and middle kingdom monuments in Egypt study. Some say that the mortar that was carbon dated was a material used by later dynastic Egyptians to repair the monument. Even if it is implausible, there is still a doubt because a part of the carbon in the mortar may come from traces of the lime rock stones used to make the mortar.

@Graffito: I'm going to believe the Egyptian records until proven otherwise anyway.

@Graffito "no organic material was found in pyramids" False. And trivial to research.

Good answer. One point: Occam's razor is just a notion or a guide for thought. It has no inherent validity on its own. "Failing" Occam's razor tells us nothing about the truth of an assertion.

@ToddWilcox : "Failing" Occam's razor certainly tells us something about the truth of an assertion - but not everything, it is not conclusive just by itself.

@Graffito So just to understand your idea: The Egyptian records were falsified and then modern archeologists when carbon dating the material inside the pyramids (which against your initial claim did exist) went to great lengths to exclude any material that was older?

@Voo: In my initial comment,I was just thinking of organic material issued from tombs or paintings (forgetting mortar). Being the advocate of the devil (my conviction is that the pyramids were not built 7000 years ago), you may remark that carbon dating on mortar may lead to inconclusive results and that the mortar of Giza pyramids used for dating could have been used to repair the building long after initial construction.

@Evargalo I’m totally missing what Occam’s razor tells us about the truth of an assertion. What does it tell us?

It should be noted that there are plenty of naturally formed pyramid-shaped mountains, some of which are thought to perhaps be the inspiration for the pyramid builders in Egypt (as well as those in Mesoamerica and other parts of the world.)

@ToddWilcox Occams Razor says effectively - if there are two equi-probable theories then the simpler one is to be "preferred". Preferred 'simply' means that it has more utility. eg takes less ink to write a simpler version. Assuming planets move in epicycles is harder to understand. You know all that. HOWEVER - the more complex solution has more that can go wrong, requires nature to jump through more hoops, has more grounds for mis understanding or misinterpretation. Has ... . || SO it is more likely that the simpler version is in fact correct. It's not certain and it's only probabalistic ...

... but eg the cat is more liable to be alive than dead. So: Summary - Alternatives should not be multiplied, and, if they are, even though the more complex explains what we see just as well, the more complex is often more likely to be wrong.

@RussellMcMahon Preference doesn't seem linked to truth. It's my contention that Occam's razor is not useful here on Skeptics.SE with respect to validating or invalidating a claim. I don't see how it provides any evidence one way or the other to support or reject a claim. "... though the more complex explains what we see just as well, the more complex is often more likely to be wrong." - I know that's what Occam's Razor says, but I am not aware of any validation ever being done for that assertion. I can think of lots of "simpler" but false explanations for a lot of things.

@Graffito Regarding "Even if it is implausible, there is still a doubt because a part of the carbon in the mortar may come from traces of the lime rock stones used to make the mortar" Any older carbon from e.g. the limestone would lead to an apparent older dating. And of course, the 300 different locations would have been contaminated differently. That is just grasping at straws.

@ToddWilcox I would suggest that Occam's razor is useful here, but I would also frame it slightly differently than Russell. The key is whether you can actually tell the difference in the theories. The simplest theory that explains all the facts should be treated as the correct one, because there's no limit to complexity. But if there's some edge case which the simplest theory can't explain, then it's not the correct one (although it may still be useful). It's the same reason why we don't add +0 to every math equation - if it works without it, it's not needed, and it avoids +0+0+0...

Yeah, I was going to invoke the Durhem-Quine thesis as an explanation for my use of Occam's Razor but it seemed like a bit much to discuss in a comment

Specifically, the pyramids can be carbon dated from structural logs remaining in some chambers and from flecks of soot throughout the stone mortar. I haven't heard than any actual burial chambers were intact enough to have remaining organic material.

@RussellMcMahon I agree with your take, but not with the wording. Let's not shy away from throwing out the "preferred theory" and instead having a good ol' "truth". Outside of axiomatic setting (math!), there is no stronger definition of the word "truth" than a theory which you choose (for now... despite the fact it could become outdated any minute...). A scientist does not call this theory true: {F = m*a but only when an invisible dragon exists in my garage}. In such example it's precisely the Occam's Razor which leads them to truth.

@ToddWilcox Occam's razor does not say what you say that I said it said :-) - it just says that if there are two theories with equal explanatory power then you might as well go with the simpler one. I agree that the simpler theory is certainly not always correct. BUT, I explained why (I claimed that) the simpler equally-good explanation is liable to have a statistical bias. Reput: Murphy says that if something can go wrong it will go wrong. If you have more somethings then on average you are liable to have more goings wrong. | Always? Most certainly not. | Bet your house on it? No.

@kubanczyk invisible floating Sagan-Dragons in one's garage are substantially underrated. Ignoring that enough of our reality is magical is perilous. Quantum Mechanics laughs at us from the foundations of reality. Scientists who disparage Sagan-dragons still happily propose magic invisible matter & energy to help current theories retain their tenuous position at the centre of received cosmological truth. | I've recently seen claims that Greenland ice-core data shows that , current world temperatures are [the coldest | the hottest] they've been in the last 3000 years. Choose 1 or more.

@Graffito No organic material was found in the pyramids? The enormous tombs? You don't think there might be something organic inside a tomb?

@RussellMcMahon There are no substantially simpler theories that can compete with dark matter. Every time an alternative appears it gets quite a coverage, which is a sign that many people are looking to switch.

@ComicSansSeraphim: Unlike other Egyptians monuments, no funerary material or mummies was found in Giza pyramids.

@RussellMcMahon xkcd.com/1758

@kubanczyk As above - I'm aware that DM is a contentious subject. || The reason that DM fits the data is because it is the data. It is a postulated invisible inexplicable (lots of theories) stuff that clusters where it wants to, has voids where it wants to and which will fit whatever new observations that are made next week because, again, it IS the data. It is impossible to falsify DM as a postulate using what we see, as anything new just fits right in. || Gravity working different works exactly the same as DM. Neither is yet falsifiable. || TBD.