3 ms·

You could be right. It is certainly a compelling argument; "either scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots" (paraphrased). The answer is however unequ

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.

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.