OOPArts

[Harte]

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.)

I have no idea, and I will never find out if con men keep meddling in this field.

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.

Evidence, yes. Proof, no. Evidence is not the same as proof. After all, in the example of the sphinx (which is not really a good example for this idea, either,) even if we were to find Egyptian writings about how and when and by whom it was carved, these writings would not constitute "proof." For, how could we be completely and absolutely sure that the writings were telling us the truth? Even a time machine would not suffice, as we could just as easily be visiting the past of a different universe as that of our own, a universe where the sphinx was carved at a time different than the carving date of the sphinx that exists in this universe.

There's just no way around this solipsitic conundrum when you involve the word "proof." "Proof" only exists in the arcane world of mathematics, and there only because every term used has a precise mathematical definition.

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.

I feel similarly about many unestablished ideas in Archaeology. I'm ready to change any opinion I may have upon presentation of any new evidence that leans contrary to what I have been surmising.

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"?

Like I said earlier, a pseudoscientist is one that conveniently ignores the established facts in order to further his theory. So yes, when Hawass does it, he is defending a theory (not his theory BTW.) When Hancock does it, he is sweeping established known factoids under the rug so that the laymen who read his trash can be better convinced to buy his next book. Did you not read my example about Pacal's sarcophagus?

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.

The proper usage of the English language was not a topic I was addressing (well, okay, maybe I was in the sense that I had to remark on the difference between proof and evidence.) I'll say that the proper use of the word "pseudoscience" was not the target of any of my posts, I was just mentioning a way of detecting it. I'm sure that some people misuse the term, just as some misuse many English terms (my favorite - the use of "jive" instead of "jibe" as in "these facts do not jibe/jive. ) Jibe is correct, jive is a type of slang language. I've given up whining about such atrocious ignorance of language.

Clearly the practice of pseudoscience is not confined to non-professionals. After all, Schoch's works are certainly pseudoscientific, and he's a professional Geophysicist.

Harte

[stan]

Like I said earlier, a pseudoscientist is one that conveniently ignores the established facts in order to further his theory.

-----Harte.

Harte, in your universe, can there be any established facts?
After all, you might be dreaming.

What do you regard as an established fact if not something which you believe to be proven?

[marduk]

Even a time machine would not suffice, as we could just as easily be visiting the past of a different universe as that of our own, a universe where the sphinx was carved at a time different than the carving date of the sphinx that exists in this universe.

I beg to differ
Platos seems to work perfectly and is almost universal in its appearances throughout history
ref Hancock
ref Childress
ref Schoch
ref Sitchin (especially)
plus many others whos theories would fall flat if Plato and his machine turned out to be imaginary

[JohnB]

plus many others whos theories would fall flat if Plato and his machine turned out to be imaginary

I don't know, Homer's seemed to work all right and it was 400 years older.

I have no idea, and I will never find out if con men keep meddling in this field.

Damn but I bet we could spent a bloody good evening over a bottle of Malt Scotch.

Evidence, yes. Proof, no. Evidence is not the same as proof. After all, in the example of the sphinx (which is not really a good example for this idea, either,) even if we were to find Egyptian writings about how and when and by whom it was carved, these writings would not constitute "proof." For, how could we be completely and absolutely sure that the writings were telling us the truth?

True, but it would be very strong evidence. My point is that the mainstream theory is being vigorously defended in spite of the fact that it has very little evidence to support it.

Again, I'm not backing Hancock but he does serve as a good example here. Hancock puts forward a theory with bugger all to back it up and so he's a pseudoscientist. Hawass defends a theory that has bugger all to back it up and therefore he's a scientist. Funny, I always thought things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

When Hancock does it, he is sweeping established known factoids under the rug so that the laymen who read his trash can be better convinced to buy his next book.

And yet in this case there is bugger all to sweep under the rug, isn't there? (And yes, I did note your reference to Pacal. )

I'm against jumping to conclusions from very little evidence and then defending those conclusions as if they were Holy Writ, that's all. In my books if anybody does it, they are a pseudoscientist.

On a slightly different track, how do we know the Sphinx Temple was a temple? It has no adornment, no evidence at all for it's original use. It may have been a Throne room with Pharaoh dispensing law under the watchful wisdom of the Sphinx. It may have been a school (although a very small one) or a hospital or a courthouse. When first excavated it was named as a temple without any supporting evidence and there the matter rested.

Consider also please that even the presence of the statue of a God would only constitute evidence of a Temple, not proof. there must be corroborating evidence. In every city and most towns in Australia there is a building with the statue of a God outside, yet they have nothing to do with religion. (And I'm willing to bet your nation is the same.) In the absence of other evidence, what would a future archaeologist decide about our civilzation? See what I'm getting at? Have we jumped to conclusions?

[Minimalist]

Funny, I always thought things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Not so. Not when "The Club" (or "the Establishment" if you prefer) seeks to control the debate by controlling the terminology.

They have debased the debate to the point where a pseudoscientist is anyone who disagrees with THEM. And they have wannabes who are more than willing to do their dirty work for them.

[marduk]

the person at this forum who does more for the club than anyone else is you Min
claiming that everything you don't like is the result of the actions of the archaeological (and schools educatory just affiliated) global consipracy club is simply ridiculous and laughable
you can equate it with Arch claiming everything that he doesnt like is the work of Abaddon
you do them great credit because after ten minutes listening to your hysteria anyone who got the idea that a club exists from hancocks books like you did is firmly convinced that it doesn't
so
keep up the good work
you're doing my secret masters a great service


I told them they could rely on your wacked out belief system to work in their favour you know but they didn't believe me at first and wanted to have you rubbed out
luckily for you youre bonkers eh

[Harte]

Like I said earlier, a pseudoscientist is one that conveniently ignores the established facts in order to further his theory.

-----Harte.

Harte, in your universe, can there be any established facts?
After all, you might be dreaming.

Ahh.
Excellent point!
Exactly my own, in fact, so I'm seemingly hoist on my own petard.

What do you regard as an established fact if not something which you believe to be proven?

Here's the nub. Just as in Math, I suppose that when we are going to discuss issues like semantics, a few definitions should precede the discussion. To me, a "fact" is a thing you have on hand (or in hand.) This fact then constitutes evidence. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in reality long enough to make such considerations because hey, if I am dreaming, then what difference does it make anyway? That is, along the lines of Descarte, if I'm the only thing that exists, then there were no "ancient civilizations" in the first place, right? So why investigate them at all? I'll tell you why, when you're the only existing thing in reality, a little mental masturbation could conceivably be called for. Hence they question becomes "Why not investigate them?

True, but it would be very strong evidence. My point is that the mainstream theory is being vigorously defended in spite of the fact that it has very little evidence to support it.

Again, I'm not backing Hancock but he does serve as a good example here. Hancock puts forward a theory with bugger all to back it up and so he's a pseudoscientist. Hawass defends a theory that has bugger all to back it up and therefore he's a scientist. Funny, I always thought things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Again, to me anyway, the difference is that Hawass is aware of the context within which the current dating range is placed (as is, I'm certain, Hancock.) Hawass can tell you all about it (as can, I'm certain, Hancock.) Hawass will tell you all about it (as, I'm certain, Hancock will certainly not.) Like the Pacal carving.

Regarding your point about temples, you are correct in many cases. However, like I said before, I don't think there ever can be "proof" of anything in a field like this. As far as I'm aware, temples are thought to be temples based on their layout and design, which may (or may not, in some cases) be similar to other temples which have greater evidence for "templedom" behind them. This, of course, doesn't mean that these actually are temples. Most of this sort of stuff that is not exactly heavily substantuiated is just guess work. But that does not mean at all that one guess is as good as another. The theory that there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto cannot today be proven or disproven. But that does not mean that the theory of a Pluto-orbiting teapot should be held at the same level of respect as the theory that there is not a teapot in orbit around Pluto.

And yes, I could get into a good bottle of Single Malt meself. But, since after a few I may become unwilling to share, how about two bottles (three, if Marduk shows up)?


Harte

[marduk]

(three, if Marduk shows up)?

Five would be better Harte
just to be sure

[JohnB]

just to be sure

Perhaps we should make that Irish Whiskey.

To be sure, to be sure.

[marduk]

Caffrey's slogan for their Irish Bitter ran "strong words softly spoken"
last time I was in an irish pub where people were drinking it, it was more like "unintelligable words shouted incoherently"

[Beagle]

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 20/10/1620

The origin of New World monkeys (Infraorder Platyrrhini) has been an extensively debated issue. In this study, we analyzed mitochondrial genomes from Cebus (Platyrrhini), Homo, Hylobates, Pan, Pongo (Hominoids), Macaca, Papio (Cercopithecoids), and Tarsius (outgroup) to investigate this matter. Two distinct methodologies were employed on mitochondrial genes to estimate divergence times: the traditional likelihood ratio test performed in ML analyses of individual and concatenated gene sequences and the recent multigene Bayesian approach. Using the Cercopithecoid-Hominoid split as calibration point (25 MYA), our results show consistently that Platyrrhines split from Catarrhines at around 35 MYA. Although the main focus of the study is New World monkey origins, we have also estimated other primate divergence times: Homo-Pan at 5–7 MYA; Pongo-(Homo/Pan) at 13–16 MYA; Hylobates-(Pongo/Homo/Pan) at 15–19 MYA; and Macaca-Papio at 10–12 MYA. Our estimate for the origin of New World monkeys is in agreement with the hypothesis of a transatlantic journey from Africa to South America, as suggested by the fossil record.

This is not exactly what one would call an OOpart, but it is certainly out of place.

Little help from anyone here. How did monkeys (early primates) cross miles of open ocean to populate the Americas?

[Minimalist]

Passengers on the boats used by H. Erectus?

[Beagle]

Good thought. But there was no HE that long ago.

Thanks for that last email. Truly great!!

[Minimalist]

Just a wild guess.

[Bruce]

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/ ... imate.html

Bloch recently caught a lucky break when he made the rare discovery of nearly complete skeletons of two plesiadapiform species, now named Ignacius clarkforkensis and Dryomomys szalayi, embedded in limestone outside Yellowstone National Park.

“Our analysis shows that they’re the closest relatives of modern primates, and therefore, we’ve kind of brought them back into the order primates,” Sargis said.

Because these archaic primates exist in the fossil record long before the appearance of the first true primates 55 million years ago, they are most primitive primates known.

More NA primates