3 ms·

Really. It's "extremely odd" that an article about actual scientific findings in Doggerland doesn't talk about the rest of the world and then devolve into a st

Really. It's "extremely odd" that an article about actual scientific findings in Doggerland doesn't talk about the rest of the world and then devolve into a stream of consciousness about Atlantis, Noah and oral Aboriginal history? This is the science of archaeology and the people who do it don't nearly care as much about Atlantis as you.

kbenson 5y ago
I think that's a bit more dismissive than called for. I don't think Atlantis was being used so it could be pointed to as being true and about some amazing ancient civilization as much as evidence of "yet another flood myth", and how that related to ancient historical events. As it was presented that has it's own problems, which I think were adequately pointed out by others (namely that many ancient myths about floods do not necessarily point towards the same event), but it's not nearly as bad as I think your (apparently?) knee-jerk reaction to Atlantis may have led you to assume.
ncmncm 5y ago
It is odd specifically because the inundation of Doggerland and of those other, overwhelmingly larger areas were identically the same event. Science is an integrative activity. It matters that the same phenomenon describes an apple's fall and the moon's orbit. It matters that the Morning Star and the Evening Star are both Venus. It matters that light, radio, x-rays and radiated heat are all electromagnetic waves that propagate at a fixed rate. It matters that electromagnetics, the nuclear strong force, and the nuclear weak force trace to the same root. It matters that polar and rectangular coordinate systems, and wave propagation and exponential growth and decay, are all concisely related via exponentiation of the base of the natural logarithm. It probably matters that Mesopotamian and Indus river valley civilizations arose at the same time. "Atlantis" is just a name for a wholly plausible phenomenon that, if something like it existed, could be found with enough investigation. Fear of a name is not science. Excoriating people for wanting to see evidence sought for is the antithesis of science.

kbenson 5y ago

I think that's a bit more dismissive than called for. I don't think Atlantis was being used so it could be pointed to as being true and about some amazing ancient civilization as much as evidence of "yet another flood myth", and how that related to ancient historical events. As it was presented that has it's own problems, which I think were adequately pointed out by others (namely that many ancient myths about floods do not necessarily point towards the same event), but it's not nearly as bad as I think your (apparently?) knee-jerk reaction to Atlantis may have led you to assume.

ncmncm 5y ago

It is odd specifically because the inundation of Doggerland and of those other, overwhelmingly larger areas were identically the same event. Science is an integrative activity. It matters that the same phenomenon describes an apple's fall and the moon's orbit. It matters that the Morning Star and the Evening Star are both Venus. It matters that light, radio, x-rays and radiated heat are all electromagnetic waves that propagate at a fixed rate. It matters that electromagnetics, the nuclear strong force, and the nuclear weak force trace to the same root. It matters that polar and rectangular coordinate systems, and wave propagation and exponential growth and decay, are all concisely related via exponentiation of the base of the natural logarithm. It probably matters that Mesopotamian and Indus river valley civilizations arose at the same time. "Atlantis" is just a name for a wholly plausible phenomenon that, if something like it existed, could be found with enough investigation. Fear of a name is not science. Excoriating people for wanting to see evidence sought for is the antithesis of science.