2 ms·
The genius of this Silurian hypothesis and related ones is that they are theories of archeology where you start with an unfalsifiable premise, and then anything
by motohagiography 4y ago
The genius of this Silurian hypothesis and related ones is that they are theories of archeology where you start with an unfalsifiable premise, and then anything that fails to falsify it becomes evidence for the theory, hence "ancient astronaut theorists say 'yes'" I discovered that ancient aliens TV series just before the pandemic and have binged it as a kind of esoteric comedy, where every confirmation of the theory and their various hustles lands like a hypnotic joke. It's probably my guiltiest vice.
It is really plausible that ancient pre-cataclysm civilizations were so sophisticated that they used megalithic walled fortresses as a trans-solar biosecurity schemes, if you first accept the unfalsifiable premise that some proto-humans became spacefaring. It's brilliant.
I actually believe they're probably right in some coincidental way as well, but I enjoy the misdirection in the logic of their ideas because it's like a card trick. However, concretely, today there are two things we know: magic is a trick, and stories of parapsychological phenomena are not evidence of sophisticated extra-terrestrial life. The junk ideas challenge what other theories of everything we believe that are founded on similarly mysterious premises. Religions are fairly contained, but ideologies like the ancient astronaut theory evolve to incorporate whatever idea they encounter as new evidence of itself. Can you can do it for anything? "Ancient _X_ theorists say 'yes'"
It must be infuriating to some academic archeologists to get questions about aliens, but really, it's developing interest in the field, and I've probably said before that we could fund and promote a lot of real science by attaching entertainers to it. Not to go on, but AA is one of my favorite silly topics.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoNot the same thing. This "silurian hypothesis" is not so much asking the question about the existence of a pre-human industrial civilization but rather to what degree we could rule it out. It's a rather implausible proposition, after all, so it would take extraordinary evidence. And that evidence might not survive that long? But this doesn't make the proposition more likely.