3 ms·

This is a pretty old idea that was recently rebranded as the "Silurian Hypothesis". If you put in a bit of thought, it'll be obvious that it essentially boils d

This is a pretty old idea that was recently rebranded as the "Silurian Hypothesis". If you put in a bit of thought, it'll be obvious that it essentially boils down to one of two things: Either every paleoanthropologist, archaeologist, and geologist out there is in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth, or all of the people in those disciplines are complete idiots. An event like that would leave strong genetic, palynological, and archaeological evidence, yet nothing of that sort exists. Any explanation purporting to wipe out the evidence and replace it with the consensus story we do would be better called magic than science.

stareatgoats 6y ago
You could be right. It is certainly a compelling argument; "either scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots" (paraphrased). The answer is however unequivocally: we don't know. And it behooves to be a bit more humble when it comes to these things, and investigate each claim individually instead of making blanket statements about everything such. There are several aspects one can take into account that can inspire a more nuanced approach: one is that these kind of theories is an "entry-drug" for interest in archaeology and related sciences. To get on a high horse and nip such interest in its bud is counterproductive from a scientific perspective and is reminiscent of the defensive position that many professions are taking in the open data age that has opened for masses of amateur researchers doing much better work than a tiny cadre of elite professionals could do on their own. Another aspect of this dismissive attitude is that the notion a petrified and fact-resistant "establishment" is opening the field for all sorts of nut case Youtube channels that exploit this types of interests instead. Including the age-old nazis with their Atlantis and similar theories. So no, let's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our knowledge.
- technothrasher 6y ago
  So no, let's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our knowledge. Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible. To assert something is possible without actually showing it is possible is meaningless. That doesn't mean we can conclude it isn't possible, just that we don't know if it's possible. Second, while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'. You are, of course, entirely within your right to explore any idea you'd like, but to claim the scientific community is unfair or defensive to dismiss your idea because it either has no evidence to back it up, or frequently because it has been proposed over and over and has already been picked to death, is intellectually lazy. If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence. There's too much to study to be able to take every currently baseless idea and run with it.
  - danans 6y ago
    > If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence. That really depends on what "people" you are talking about. There is a considerable market for fantastical misinformation about history, especially when the fantasy reinforces things we want to believe about ourselves today. I have personally been led down a few story paths purporting to be historical but turning out to be nothing more recently constructed and idealized fantasies of the distant past.
  - stareatgoats 6y ago
    > Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible I said "let's assume (...) that anything is possible", a completely different thing, so your argument that " we don't know if it's possible" is moot, and a classic case of a straw man argument. > "while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'" Again, you are mostly having an argument with yourself, as this is somewhat a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. My main point is that it behooves to be a bit humble when it comes to dismissing ideas that are possible albeit without firm evidence and that offhanded dismissal should be discouraged, unless one can actually disprove the claim. It is after all the stuff from which new knowledge is made. That doesn't mean that every scientist must engage and clamor to inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim (but I do believe that an active interest from the scientific community would help cleanse the scene of some of the more outrageous theories). > "If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence." Really? so all scientific endeavors must produce evidence before they are allowed to posit something? I think you will agree that this is an untenable position hold as a general principle, and you probably mean that any layman should not be allowed to posit anything without having the proper education and academic standing. Be that as it may, such ivory towers of academic snobbishness will fall, eventually.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  You're right that I could have been less aggressive. However you seem to have some misunderstandings of my post and personal positions. I am in full support of smashing the ivory tower, public access to archaeology (it's their heritage), and understanding the limits of our technology. What I do not support is trying to find some perceived gap and slotting in made up story, especially an unreasonable one. The grandparent is firmly in the latter. Moreover, these kinds of wild stories do a great deal of harm to archaeology. I can't tell you how many burials I've seen looted because someone believed all graves have treasure. It's better to stick with the evidence we do have.
drran 6y ago
The answer is simple: concrete is very simple technology, which was discovered and forgotten multiple times, but archeologists are not specialists in concrete making technology, so they label kilns as temples. If somebody will sponsor two sits from Ukraine to Peru, I will just demonstrate that using ancient temple, which is already filled with stones, waiting for fire.
partyboat1586 6y ago
You know Graham Hancock? "Archeologists hate him, this one weird trick to discover ancient civilizations". He recently said in an interview that younger archeologists have read his work and are subversively challenging the orthodoxy. Also Randall Carlson mentioned that mainstream Geology has already come round to the idea of a catalysmic event around the time of The Younger Dryas. Now I don't know how much of what either of these men claim to be true is true but it seems to me that it's not only stupidity or conspiracy that holds a field back. The real problem is when a fundamental mistake is made and then built on, ego gets involved and confirmation bias is abound. For example Geologists at some point all decided that everything happens gradually, the earth is stable and there are no catalysmic events. In the last 20 years that has been reversed, yet cataclysmic theories of The Younger Dryas have existed since the early 20th century. It is certainly true that people like Graham Hancock and other fringe theorists play up the story of how much they oppressed by the mainstream as if it is evidence to support their claims. This is to be ignored as evidence and their arguments looked at on their own merit. We should however admit that mistakes are made in all fields, they gain momentum over time and require huge amounts of evidence to overturn.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  I was thinking of Hancock when I wrote the post. One of the major problems with this particular idea is that the number of things that would have to be wrong is so large, we're essentially talking about rewriting everything from scratch. It's on roughly the same level as geocentrism at this point. The advocates rarely if ever point out real evidence and instead claim things like gobekli tepe (or worse, yonaguni) support their argument based on very deep misunderstandings.

stareatgoats 6y ago

You could be right. It is certainly a compelling argument; "either scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots" (paraphrased). The answer is however unequivocally: we don't know. And it behooves to be a bit more humble when it comes to these things, and investigate each claim individually instead of making blanket statements about everything such. There are several aspects one can take into account that can inspire a more nuanced approach: one is that these kind of theories is an "entry-drug" for interest in archaeology and related sciences. To get on a high horse and nip such interest in its bud is counterproductive from a scientific perspective and is reminiscent of the defensive position that many professions are taking in the open data age that has opened for masses of amateur researchers doing much better work than a tiny cadre of elite professionals could do on their own. Another aspect of this dismissive attitude is that the notion a petrified and fact-resistant "establishment" is opening the field for all sorts of nut case Youtube channels that exploit this types of interests instead. Including the age-old nazis with their Atlantis and similar theories. So no, let's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our knowledge.

technothrasher 6y ago
So no, let's assume that we don't know, that anything is possible. But let's also inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim with best of our knowledge. Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible. To assert something is possible without actually showing it is possible is meaningless. That doesn't mean we can conclude it isn't possible, just that we don't know if it's possible. Second, while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'. You are, of course, entirely within your right to explore any idea you'd like, but to claim the scientific community is unfair or defensive to dismiss your idea because it either has no evidence to back it up, or frequently because it has been proposed over and over and has already been picked to death, is intellectually lazy. If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence. There's too much to study to be able to take every currently baseless idea and run with it.
- danans 6y ago
  > If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence. That really depends on what "people" you are talking about. There is a considerable market for fantastical misinformation about history, especially when the fantasy reinforces things we want to believe about ourselves today. I have personally been led down a few story paths purporting to be historical but turning out to be nothing more recently constructed and idealized fantasies of the distant past.
- stareatgoats 6y ago
  > Well, first of all, you don't know that anything is possible I said "let's assume (...) that anything is possible", a completely different thing, so your argument that " we don't know if it's possible" is moot, and a classic case of a straw man argument. > "while 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable position, it does not lead to,'therefore my pet idea is worthy'" Again, you are mostly having an argument with yourself, as this is somewhat a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. My main point is that it behooves to be a bit humble when it comes to dismissing ideas that are possible albeit without firm evidence and that offhanded dismissal should be discouraged, unless one can actually disprove the claim. It is after all the stuff from which new knowledge is made. That doesn't mean that every scientist must engage and clamor to inspect the evidence for each fantastical claim (but I do believe that an active interest from the scientific community would help cleanse the scene of some of the more outrageous theories). > "If you want people to take it seriously, you need to provide evidence." Really? so all scientific endeavors must produce evidence before they are allowed to posit something? I think you will agree that this is an untenable position hold as a general principle, and you probably mean that any layman should not be allowed to posit anything without having the proper education and academic standing. Be that as it may, such ivory towers of academic snobbishness will fall, eventually.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
You're right that I could have been less aggressive. However you seem to have some misunderstandings of my post and personal positions. I am in full support of smashing the ivory tower, public access to archaeology (it's their heritage), and understanding the limits of our technology. What I do not support is trying to find some perceived gap and slotting in made up story, especially an unreasonable one. The grandparent is firmly in the latter. Moreover, these kinds of wild stories do a great deal of harm to archaeology. I can't tell you how many burials I've seen looted because someone believed all graves have treasure. It's better to stick with the evidence we do have.

drran 6y ago

The answer is simple: concrete is very simple technology, which was discovered and forgotten multiple times, but archeologists are not specialists in concrete making technology, so they label kilns as temples. If somebody will sponsor two sits from Ukraine to Peru, I will just demonstrate that using ancient temple, which is already filled with stones, waiting for fire.

partyboat1586 6y ago

You know Graham Hancock? "Archeologists hate him, this one weird trick to discover ancient civilizations". He recently said in an interview that younger archeologists have read his work and are subversively challenging the orthodoxy. Also Randall Carlson mentioned that mainstream Geology has already come round to the idea of a catalysmic event around the time of The Younger Dryas. Now I don't know how much of what either of these men claim to be true is true but it seems to me that it's not only stupidity or conspiracy that holds a field back. The real problem is when a fundamental mistake is made and then built on, ego gets involved and confirmation bias is abound. For example Geologists at some point all decided that everything happens gradually, the earth is stable and there are no catalysmic events. In the last 20 years that has been reversed, yet cataclysmic theories of The Younger Dryas have existed since the early 20th century. It is certainly true that people like Graham Hancock and other fringe theorists play up the story of how much they oppressed by the mainstream as if it is evidence to support their claims. This is to be ignored as evidence and their arguments looked at on their own merit. We should however admit that mistakes are made in all fields, they gain momentum over time and require huge amounts of evidence to overturn.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
I was thinking of Hancock when I wrote the post. One of the major problems with this particular idea is that the number of things that would have to be wrong is so large, we're essentially talking about rewriting everything from scratch. It's on roughly the same level as geocentrism at this point. The advocates rarely if ever point out real evidence and instead claim things like gobekli tepe (or worse, yonaguni) support their argument based on very deep misunderstandings.