3 ms·

I don't think this is a crank theory, it was put forward by real scientists, not random members of the general public. It looks to me like the consensus leans

I don't think this is a crank theory, it was put forward by real scientists, not random members of the general public. It looks to me like the consensus leans heavily towards it not being correct but it's not a crazy idea. I'm getting the sense that this has maybe become politicized for some reason? Why?

throwaway5752 4y ago
I would firmly disagree with you. I think you are falling for an argument to moderation. You can look at most fringe theories in history and find nominal scientists that support it. Scientists are people, too, and are subject to all sorts of human mental weaknesses. This is a crank theory because it starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it, and for a long time. Read this linked paper - really scrutinize the data, the charts, and the conclusions. There are simpler explanations that fit the data better, and the impact data is really dubious. I am not reacting to the point that some people wish there was a technically advanced pre-Clovis culture that was submerged (aka, Atlantis without admitting it is Atlantis). I am looking at the ice core data in this paper, the extinction records, and the time scales involved. They do not add up.
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  Well, you seem like you’ve researched this more closely than I have. I really haven’t dug in at all except for the Wikipedia page. I’m comfortable admitting that I know less about this than you do.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    He has not, in fact, researched it scrupulously. He is the crank he accuses all of us as.
- hnfong 4y ago
  When is 'starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it' a bad thing? A lot of physics discoveries started with a hypothesis, then scientists tried to set up experiments to look for empirical data to confirm the hypothesis. If that's your only objection to these theories, maybe you're starting with your own conclusion yourself.

throwaway5752 4y ago

I would firmly disagree with you. I think you are falling for an argument to moderation. You can look at most fringe theories in history and find nominal scientists that support it. Scientists are people, too, and are subject to all sorts of human mental weaknesses. This is a crank theory because it starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it, and for a long time. Read this linked paper - really scrutinize the data, the charts, and the conclusions. There are simpler explanations that fit the data better, and the impact data is really dubious. I am not reacting to the point that some people wish there was a technically advanced pre-Clovis culture that was submerged (aka, Atlantis without admitting it is Atlantis). I am looking at the ice core data in this paper, the extinction records, and the time scales involved. They do not add up.

fallingfrog 4y ago
Well, you seem like you’ve researched this more closely than I have. I really haven’t dug in at all except for the Wikipedia page. I’m comfortable admitting that I know less about this than you do.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  He has not, in fact, researched it scrupulously. He is the crank he accuses all of us as.
hnfong 4y ago
When is 'starts with a conclusion and has been trying to fit the evidence to it' a bad thing? A lot of physics discoveries started with a hypothesis, then scientists tried to set up experiments to look for empirical data to confirm the hypothesis. If that's your only objection to these theories, maybe you're starting with your own conclusion yourself.