4 ms·
Hancock doesn't enjoy much reputation in the scientific community, with good reason: science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true, Hancock is more
by stareatgoats 9y ago
Hancock doesn't enjoy much reputation in the scientific community, with good reason: science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true, Hancock is more about letting the imagination fly, based on cherry-picking something here and there. It doesn't mean that his theory about a 'mother-culture' will eventually prove totally incorrect, but there is ample reason to remain skeptical as long as there is no "smoking gun" so to speak.
One good reason to await solid evidence (if such a reason might at all be needed) is that the idea of an ancient, superior culture has been used in ideology before: the Atlantis story was one of the cornerstones of the Nazi mythology [0], but of course without the archaeological evidence to back it up. No need to repeat past mistakes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology
- eikenberry 9y ago> science is about what we can reasonably believe to be true No, science is about what we can formulate testable predictions. It can be completely unreasonable, yet still be science. Many major breakthroughs have been from unreasonable ideas.
- woodandsteel 9y agoLike many words in the English language, the term "reasonable" has more than one meaning. I think the OP was using it for a meaning that fits your explanation of science.
- agapon 9y agoI am not sure if this (very correct) definition of science applies to sciences that study what happened in the past.
- cygx 9y agoHypothesis: Troy existed Prediction: There's a buried city in Asia Minor Test: Go there and dig it up
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dragandj 9y agoThat prediction could be right even if that hypothesis was wrong. Hypothesis 2: City X different than Troy existed is equally well made more plausible by digging a city up in Asia Minor.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- colordrops 9y agoI think you are getting caught in the weeds. The point is that historical science is still evidence based.
- T-A 9y agoYes, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Verificationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Verificationism
- xapata 9y agoBut that's true regardless of the hypothesis. An alternative is always possible.