OOPArts

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:12 am

Thanks Beagle. I'm aware that there isn't any pseudoscience here, but I'm also aware it's discussed dispassionately here. (You did start a book review of Chariots of the Gods, did you not?

)

Being dispassionate is important because it allows you view facts and consider evidence without a preconcieved bias. Von Daniken is obviously a swiss clock, but he has a different "take" on things so maybe in the morass of moronity there might be a small jewel. Maybe by turning the jigsaw puzzle piece upside-down it will fit better. You never know until you try it. ( and of course you may be just wasting your time too.

)

Marduk, not bad, 42 lines to reply to a three line off the cuff comment and totally miss the point of my post. I do wonder however if you read the full text, with particular reference to "evidence". (See above for my thoughts on "dispassionate consideration of...")

if you want to believe in this kind of crap then thats up to you
if youre not prepared to do the actual research yourself or listen to experts who have then it isn't science anyway is it
its personal belief

Firstly I don't "believe" in any theory ATM.

Secondly I will listen to the experts provided they are willing to demonstrate their evidence. I don't accept knowledge ex cathedra from the church and I sure as hell won't accept it from any "expert". To again use the Sphinx as an example, there is no direct evidence linking the monument to the IVth Dynasty. Hence any demand that I accept the "experts" opinion to that effect is a demand without basis in fact and therefore worthless.

You want me to "believe" the Sphinx was carved to represent Khafre during his reign? Fine. All you have to do is show me your evidence. Prove it to me and I'll believe you.

While I don't think there is any world-wide conspiracy amoungst archaeologist to hide the truth I also don't subscribe to the fanciful concept that the "scientist" is inhumanly dispassionate and will throw out (or easily reconsider) an outdated theory when provided with new evidence.

No lecturer will look forward to the idea of going up in front of the students he has been teaching for four years and admitting that what he taught them was wrong. No professional, respected in his field likes to admit fallibility. It's not "conspiracy", it's called being human. Life is so much easier if no-one disturbs the peace. This is true in all industries and callings. Why some should believe that the same rules of Psychology would not apply to the "scientist" is frankly beyond me but then again, most religious dogma is.

As an aside, I lurk at "The Hall of Ma'at" too. I'm in awe of the wealth of knowledge there. It's slow lurking though. You know how it is, read one thread and spend 4 days reading the evidence links.

It was actually one of your posts that pointed me in this direction. I've always been impressed by your knowledge and would not think of challenging you on a point of fact unless I could provide reliable evidence to back it up. I do however feel quite up to the concept of challenging you on the interpretation of evidence at times.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:37 am

You want me to "believe" the Sphinx was carved to represent Khafre during his reign? Fine. All you have to do is show me your evidence. Prove it to me and I'll believe you.

I don't believe that the Sphinx was built during the dynastic period
I think it was recarved during that time which explains the odd dimensions
I'm afraid I do have a lot of evidence thats both logical and common sense to show what it was before it was recarved and why its in that position. you'll find the aerial view of it the mosttelling as it still retains its former shape from that angle

John
if you've been reading my posts at Maat then you know I'm hardly orthodox.
but then I'm no pseudoscientist either (this is where Beagle keeps getting confused)
I do require solid evidence otherwise I ignore the whole subject and look for something else just as interesting that can be proven.
its saves me from having a breakdown that way
I don't think some things will ever be knowable as you say in this current psycological climate
but when professional people discover something that renders previous beliefs incorrect they usually are the first to mention it in order to immortalise themselves
Einstein didn't shut up when he proved Newton wrong in certain areas did he
neither does anyone else

but they publish first and then everyone finds out at the same time
and some people are just incapable of publishing the truth
I think more things fall through the gaps at that stage than anywhere else
its like "I don't want to have to do all that paperwork"
know what I mean

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:16 am

I'm no pseudoscientist either (this is where Beagle keeps getting confused)

The use of the word pseudoscience, as well as alternative, seems to be an indication of the degree to which one has been brainwashed.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:32 am

if thats the case why is it that you have at two different intervalsaccused me of being orthodox alternative and psuedoscientific

its also a usualtactic of the brainwashed to accuse the opposition of being like them
its called transference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:38 am

There you go again. Using psychiatric terms that you don't understand.

You certainly are a glutton for punishment, but I'm not in the mood today. Why don't you try posting some archaeology for a change?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:04 am

You certainly are a glutton for punishment, but I'm not in the mood today. Why don't you try posting some archaeology for a change?

see classic transference
coming from a man who wanted to do an in depth study of fingerpaints of the gods thats quite a compliment when its dried out and turned around
why don't you actually do something worthwhile for a change rather than constantly harassing me beagle
your first post to me on this forum was to accuse me of being a spy for the orthodox club. you even slandered me by calling me deceptive
you haven't changed your opinion at all have you
despite all the evidence to the contrary
finding reality hard to deal with is a sure sign of an impending breakdown
or of course a sure sign of someone way out of his depth who doesn't have the maturity to admit it

I know which one I think is more likely

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:37 pm

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Beagle. I'm aware that there isn't any pseudoscience here, but I'm also aware it's discussed dispassionately here. (You did start a book review of Chariots of the Gods, did you not? )

Being dispassionate is important because it allows you view facts and consider evidence without a preconcieved bias. Von Daniken is obviously a swiss clock, but he has a different "take" on things so maybe in the morass of moronity there might be a small jewel. Maybe by turning the jigsaw puzzle piece upside-down it will fit better. You never know until you try it. ( and of course you may be just wasting your time too. )

Actually JohnB, it's Fingerprints of the Gods, by Hancock, but the point is the same. Having never read Hancock before, I thought it would be interesting to discuss and share my thoughts as we went, with Minimalists' help.

It's gotten a lot of attention. And we're not quite done yet.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:15 pm

It's gotten a lot of attention. And we're not quite done yet.

Whenever you're ready.

Harte · Post by **Harte** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:12 am

JohnB wrote: Being dispassionate is important because it allows you view facts and consider evidence without a preconcieved bias. Von Daniken is obviously a swiss clock, but he has a different "take" on things so maybe in the morass of moronity there might be a small jewel. Maybe by turning the jigsaw puzzle piece upside-down it will fit better. You never know until you try it. ( and of course you may be just wasting your time too. )

This illustrates the main thing about pseudoscientists, specifically pseudohistorians, that gets my goat. I agree that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. But when you secure this "jewel" (as you call it) firmly in the matrix of horsecrap that is vonDaniken's "research," and then repeat the same line of crap like some mantra for twenty or thirty years, ad infinitum, author upon author, it tends to prevent serious research from being done on the "jewel" that one of these conmen may have inadvertantly uncovered.

This puts pseudohistorians in the ironic (and enriching) position of creating a situation where Academia won't touch even the smallest part of their pseudohistorical "theories" with a ten foot pole for fear of being laughed right out of their grants, thus ensuring that the authors can continue to make the silly claim about how "mainstream scientists are hiding the truth."

I happen to think that there may well be some "unexplained" and outlandish (possibly) events in human history. But conmen like vonDaniken and Hancock and Cremo and Childress and Sitchen and the rest are essentially creating a situation that results in our having very little, if any, chance of learning about these things (if they ever happened, that is.) Hence, they do damage to the very fields they claim to be trying to further.

JohnB wrote: You want me to "believe" the Sphinx was carved to represent Khafre during his reign? Fine. All you have to do is show me your evidence. Prove it to me and I'll believe you.

John,

The sorry truth is, there is just no "proof" at all of anything in the physical world. Nothing exists except evidence. When you read people saying "prove it," they're either talking about the legal definition of "proof," or they are losing an argument.

The sphinx is not a good example of an artifact that has a strong evidentiary provenance. But when the evidence it does have behind it is placed against the complete and utter lack of evidence exhibited by people like Hancock or Bauvel et al., or the extremely slim and questionable evidence presented by Schoch (though at least he brings something to the table, thankyouverymuch,) then it's just a matter of believing one over the other until more evidence is found (if ever.)

As I said, the sphinx is not a good example of the vagaries of pseudohistory, primarily because it's still an open question when it was carved (yep, that's right, there are still several theories and anyone that knows anything about the subject knows that the provenance for the generally agreed upon dating hangs by a very slim thread.) On the other hand, a quick perusal of the writings published by all the authors making claims of outrageously ancient carving of the sphinx will show you how these people play fast and loose with the facts that are actually known and established. Hancock, for example, still refers to Pacal as "operating some sort of advanced machinery, perhaps even a space vehicle" decades after vonDaniken first made this dumb claim way back when in "Chariots of the Gods." I forgive vonDaniken because I'm a nice person and at the time the glyphs accompanying Pacal's sarcophagus had not been translated. But they since have been, yet Hancock continues to ignore what they say.

Pardon me if I put my fingers in my ears and chant "La La La La La La...." everytime Hancock speaks.

Harte

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:15 am

You bet, Min. This has been my primo camping season plus we were full of trollage earlier. This next week I am in Florida and this pretty much caps off my camping each year.

I'll have my laptop per usual but I generally toss in some comments rather than post new topics. You know how it is, you were recently gone a week. When I get back, I'll be ready to finish if you are.

I'm going to have my RV right up on the beach - reserved. I'll try and resist reports from paradise.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:23 am

primarily because it's still an open question when it was carved

Sorry, Harte. I watched Zahi rant and rave like a lunatic on tv stating that "the sphinx was built by Khafre and it is the 'soul' of Egypt." The head of the Club seemed awfully convinced. His 'evidence' is highly circumstantial.

When you contrast it with Schoch's observations about weathering the evidence for a 4th Dynasty construction looks even slimmer. Schoch (who was the source of inspiration for Hancock and Bauval) never says WHO built it. He merely asserts that it had to be built earlier than the Egyptology Club maintains.

And they hate that.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:24 am

Beagle wrote:You bet, Min. This has been my primo camping season plus we were full of trollage earlier. This next week I am in Florida and this pretty much caps off my camping each year.

I'll have my laptop per usual but I generally toss in some comments rather than post new topics. You know how it is, you were recently gone a week. When I get back, I'll be ready to finish if you are.

I'm going to have my RV right up on the beach - reserved. I'll try and resist reports from paradise.

Enjoy it, amigo. I never got the thrill of camping. I prefer a nice hotel on the beach....with a fully stocked bar.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:01 am

Firstly, sorry for the reply delay, but we're very busy at work at the moment.

Marduk.

I don't believe that the Sphinx was built during the dynastic period
I think it was recarved during that time which explains the odd dimensions
I'm afraid I do have a lot of evidence thats both logical and common sense to show what it was before it was recarved and why its in that position. you'll find the aerial view of it the mosttelling as it still retains its former shape from that angle.

If you posted this at Ma'at I'm afraid I missed it. I would be very interested in seeing your evidence and reading your conclusions.

when professional people discover something that renders previous beliefs incorrect they usually are the first to mention it in order to immortalise themselves
Einstein didn't shut up when he proved Newton wrong in certain areas did he
neither does anyone else

True, but making other professionals give up long held beliefs on the basis of evidence is another matter. My main concern is that evidence is sometimes judged not on it's merits, but by who presents it. (And whether or not it agrees with the current favourite theory.)

I don't have an idealistic view of science or scientists. If the espoused principles were actually adhered to, there wouldn't be any adherents left for the "Clovis First" theory, would there?

Harte.
I agree with your first two paragraphs. On the third, I'm curious what you think these mysteries are. (And what you think the solutions might be.)

The sorry truth is, there is just no "proof" at all of anything in the physical world. Nothing exists except evidence. When you read people saying "prove it," they're either talking about the legal definition of "proof," or they are losing an argument.

And all this time I've been labouring under the misapprehension that the practice of scientific principle was to present your evidence and argue your conclusions to either substantiate or disprove a theory. I had no idea that by asking a member of the scientific community to show proof (evidence) I showed I was losing an argument.

I happen to think the Sphinx is an excellent example of the vagaries of pseudohistory. As you say, there is a dearth of evidence that really supports any theory conclusively. This makes the almost pathological defense of the IVth Dynasty theory (in some quarters) much harder to reconcile with scientific principles. Please bear in mind that I ATM don't support any theory as to the dating of the Sphinx. I'm willing to look at all theories and see what evidence is offered to support the theory. There may never be enough evidence to conclusively support any theory. I can live with that. Life without wonder and mystery would be so boring.

It's attitudes to evidence that I've been talking about all along. If a "pseudoscientist" is one who clings to his theory without good evidence, then what do you call an archaeologist/egyptologist who does exactly the same thing? If Hancock does it, he's "milking a gullible public" but when Hawass does it he's "Defending a theory"?

What do you call someone who clings to the "Clovis First" model in spite of directly contradicting evidence?

I suppose all I'm getting at is that;
a) The term "pseudoscience" is used far too much as a means of avoiding debate in the same way that any label can be overused. Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, the list is endless. This is not conducive to a reasonable debate on issues, it's just name calling. And
b) The practice of "pseudoscience" is not confined to non professionals.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:51 am

The term "pseudoscience" is used far too much as a means of avoiding debate in the same way that any label can be overused

It amounts to academic "swiftboating", John. Derisive terms are trotted out whenever needed to discredit the "messenger" without ever really dealing with the message.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:02 am

It amounts to academic "swiftboating", John. Derisive terms are trotted out whenever needed to discredit the "messenger" without ever really dealing with the message.

I couldn't agree more Min
like some people who claim a global "club" is hiding the evidence because it doesn't match their own personal belief