141 réponses à ce sujet

[Praetor Knight]

meh:mellow:

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 09 décembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Ecaiki]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Simple oil lamps - of the kind that were common at the time - would do the trick, though soot marks can be washed off, and you generally find torch-handle fitting holes in the tombs gauged into the wall at regular intervals... which seems to suggest torches.

Alright that works.

No, I've decided no such thing - I however DO have a standard of evidence that corresponds to what science expects, and what proper archeology requires. This means that I do not take any current inability to explain how EXACTLY something was built as evidence of anything other than our own ignorance. I'm completely open to the idea of alien visitation, but I do require actual solid evidence, and not vague hand waving. The problem is that the advocates of alien archeology have lost credibility by presenting really bad, faulty "evidence" as proper evidence. How many of their claims do you have to investigate and find meritless, before you decide that it's probably not worth your time to look at the rest of their claims?

Aliens visiting the Earth and helping people build stuff is a remarkable claim, that would require remarkable evidence to be established, yet all that is given is conjecture, logical fallacy (argument from ignorance), and cherry picked evidence.

Just the way you were coming across.

In what ways have they provided "faulty" evidence?  The documentries I've seen have been clear, concise, and "showed their working out" so to speak.  I'm not one to just hear something and believe it, so for me to take this seriously they had to at least have explained themselves in a logical way where the logic wasn't easy to poke holes in (your mileage on that may vary).

And where did you learn that from? An alien archeology "documentary"? I don't know why engineers would "admit" any such thing, when you've got a regular guy moving several ton objects in his back yard, using simple leverage.

I'd have to look around for where I've heard it.

You ASSUME that the quantity of knowledge lost was vast, when in fact, if you watched the video I posted earlier in this thread, you can see how simple things can be used to achieve amazing feats.

That we don't know exactly how the pyramids were built, does not mean that we don't have plausible hypothesis - we do have several. It's just that real archeologists don't declare that they know something without solid evidence that that was, in fact, how it was done.

I assume nothing, they had several things we would consider "modern" 2,000 years ago.  Two examples being vending machines, and automatic doors.

Oh please, archeologists have been stating their initial findings as fact for the last 100 years at least.

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Society wise I see what you meant. Okay. But if they were able to build a
1000 year Empire why couldn't they build one pyramid without help from
extraterrestrials? So now we're bashing the Mayans now? And of course
the Mayans created one and also they build their own pyramid too. But of
course we all know aliens helped with that too.

Yeah when you're done being over sensitive I'll be over here.

Modifié par Ecaiki, 03 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

You ASSUME that the quantity of knowledge lost was vast, when in fact, if you watched the video I posted earlier in this thread, you can see how simple things can be used to achieve amazing feats.

But why after that the newer Pharaohs screwed it up and they had very small tombs with less strength. I saw one of them which is ruined for bad engineering. They couldn't build anything like those 3 major pyramids ... Their technology was lost in 1500 years after the big pyramids and they hardly keep their Mummification.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Garbage Master wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

You ASSUME that the quantity of knowledge lost was vast, when in fact, if you watched the video I posted earlier in this thread, you can see how simple things can be used to achieve amazing feats.

But why after that the newer Pharaohs screwed it up and they had very small tombs with less strength. I saw one of them which is ruined for bad engineering. They couldn't build anything like those 3 major pyramids ... Their technology was lost in 1500 years after the big pyramids and they hardly keep their Mummification.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

"The most prolific pyramid-building phase coincided with the greatest degree of absolutist pharaonic rule. It was during this time that the most famous pyramids, those near Giza,
were built. Over time, as authority became less centralized, the
ability and willingness to harness the resources required for construction on a massive scale decreased, and later pyramids were smaller, less well-built and often hastily constructed."

It is not only technological knowledge that is required to build massive monuments, it is also manpower, funds, power to put such huge resources into a building project - all of which are best done under absolute rule.

You don't just need the technology, you need the political will too.

Again, no need to resort to extraterrestrials, especially when you've got a perfectly good, and very human explanation.

[Ecaiki]

Swordfish, have you ever seen The Pyramid Code series?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@Swordfishtrombone

Yes, I've read some notes and books about Egypt. The Barbarians had weakened them (middle dynasties) and probably destroyed some of the knowledge in the temples once or two times. Weak Autocracy is another bad reason. But it seems some of ancient knowledge had survived the test of time and reached to Alexandria's Bibliotech, and we see Greeks and Romans find many advantages! Finally that Library was burned and other parts of knowledge lost (other parts remained in Roman and Persia Empire).

[Swordfishtrombone]

Ecaiki wrote...

Swordfish, have you ever seen The Pyramid Code series?

If I have, I don't rememeber it - it's been a long time since I was into the pseudoscientific stuff. Loved all of it, and gobbled it up as true when I was a teenager, before learning a little about standards of evidence and science, and saw how flimsy their claims were.

[Swordfishtrombone]

I'll have to leave any further discussion for tomorrow - unfortunately, I feel a migrane coming on right now.

[Ecaiki]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

If I have, I don't rememeber it - it's been a long time since I was into the pseudoscientific stuff. Loved all of it, and gobbled it up as true when I was a teenager, before learning a little about standards of evidence and science, and saw how flimsy their claims were.

I recommend it if for nothing else then a new perspective on Egyptian history.

Though I'm curious about something.  Lets say the situation had been reversed, and these "pseudoscientific" explenations had been the original conclusions.  Would you defend them as staunchly as you do the current "official" stories?

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

I'll have to leave any further discussion for tomorrow - unfortunately, I feel a migrane coming on right now. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

Heh, I have to go get some sleep anyway.  I should have gone to bed 3 hours ago!  

Modifié par Ecaiki, 03 décembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[TheMufflon]

Ecaiki wrote...

The documentries I've seen have been clear, concise, and "showed their working out" so to speak.  I'm not one to just hear something and believe it, so for me to take this seriously they had to at least have explained themselves in a logical way where

The problem here is that we as laymen lack any extensive knowledge or expertise on the subject. Thus any one sided presentation of a theory will sound, to us, reasonable and accurate. That's why it is important not to take them at face value, but instead look around for and assess opposing viewpoints.

the logic wasn't easy to poke holes in (your mileage on that may vary)

Logic is much easier to poke holes through if you have the right tools. Like, say, a razor.

[JRCHOharry]

I enjoyed watching that, even if it was glazed with a bit of horse manure.

[Druss99]

AwesomeName wrote...

The History Channel's hilarious... it's mostly doom, gloom and disaster stuff. A lot of it comes across very pseudoscientific and just entertainment.

Don't forget Ice Road Truckers. They advertise it as people on the verge of death and tease you with hints that this week someone is going to go into the ice but the worst I've seen happen in four seasons is someone drove into some snow. They don't even drive on the damn ice roads anymore.

Ancient Aliens was just entertainment it had no scientific basis at all. Saying that though I do enjoy the History channel for its crazy nonesense that alot of people take serious.

[Tranceptor]

Ancient "Alien" Technology?



Nah.



A Wizard did it.

[Alexine]

It's funny with all of these "alien" theories that come out from ancient civilisation structures. If you ever do a history course, you'll realise so many gaps in written and primary sources, even the sources that we have today in modern times is no doubt the tip of the iceberg. But then again, wild speculation has been a part of our history. You would be surprised that a lot of the amazing ancient structures were all built with very simple techniques. Why must everything think that the world is more complicated than it already is? (Like those crackpots who says that the Pyramids are made by aliens since it positioning was like constellation Orion)



And I don't like the History Channel. It used to be good until corporations started milking it so that we are follow their corporate beehive minds. It's always best to keep an open mind when watching these, and make up your own opinion about it on the evidence and conclusions.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Ecaiki wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

If I have, I don't rememeber it - it's been a long time since I was into the pseudoscientific stuff. Loved all of it, and gobbled it up as true when I was a teenager, before learning a little about standards of evidence and science, and saw how flimsy their claims were.

I recommend it if for nothing else then a new perspective on Egyptian history.

Though I'm curious about something.  Lets say the situation had been reversed, and these "pseudoscientific" explenations had been the original conclusions.  Would you defend them as staunchly as you do the current "official" stories?

It is a matter of quality of evidence, and methodology - not the actual conclusions. The only way the pseudoscientific explanations would have been the "official story" as you call it, would be if the actual archeological community used the same lack of method and critical thinking, the same cherry picking and drawing wild inferences from very scarce evidence, that those supporting the alien archeology ideas demonstrate in their practices.

In such a case, no, I would not accept the "official line" but call them out on lack of methodology, and allowing wishful thinking and preferences to substitute good evidence.

This is something greatly misunderstood about skeptics - we do not just deny for the sake of denying, nor do we blindly support the "offficial line". We look at the methodology used, and look for telltale signs of good research over bad research.

Some of these things include:

- Peer review. Are the ideas presented submitted to review by a community of experts who are familiar with all the evidence? Pseudoscience very very rarely, if ever, is. Pseudoscience is characterized by the ideas being disseminated directly to the wide audience, who generally does not have, nor can be expected to have any prior expertise in the subject. It is EASY to convince a layman audience who isn't that well aquainted with what is required of science and good investigation, when you've got a good, superficially convincing sounding "just so" story. Whereas the people who have been studying the evidence professionally would immediately spot the flaws, and point out the glaring omissions.

- Logical fallacies. You don't get away with founding your case on logical fallacies in real science. You'll get called out on it, and most likely your paper will be refused publication till you correct those errors; if they somehow sneek past peer review, and get published, the author will receive - a deserved - hail of criticism from the professional audience of the peer reviewed publications. The most common logical fallacy is perhaps the aforementioned argument from personal incredulity, and it carries no weight whatsoever in good research.

- Appeals to pareidolia. This is something quite common in alien archeology, when they point out some particular carving, and declare that it's a plane, a space-man, a dinosaur etc. Yes, they might superficially look like such things, if you know to look for them, but it's incredibly easy for us humans to "spot" patterns that we expect to find in just about anything. That's how our minds work - we don't just passively record what we see, but our minds attach interpretation before we even become conscious of what we are seeing. That interpretation comes from the set of beliefs you hold. To look at the wealth of carvings and art, religious, mythical or otherwise, around the world, it would be remarkable if none of it just happened to be a close enough fit to some modern idea or technology that it would give the eager mind the stuff to declare it alien, or a depiction of something out of place.

- Reinterpreting history by LEAVING CRITICAL THINGS OUT. This is possibly the most damning. If you only tell half the story, and leave out evidence that would make your intepretation less likely, and only present to your audience things that seem to fit your view, then what you are doing is dishonest, and not proper research. Pseudoscience often resorts to this, in order to convince laymen, and because it does this, and knows it could never get away with it in front of a knowledgeable audience, you won't see them publishing for peer review. This is known as cherry picking - scouring the evidence, whether it be archeological or documentary (ancient writings), and taking things out of context, picking things here and there, until you get to a picture that matches your preconception.

- Conspiracy theories, to explain why they aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. THEY can't admit to the large audience that their methodology is horrible, that they are selective with their evidence, and that they resort to logical fallacies, so how do THEY explain the fact that they aren't taken seriously by professionals in the relevant fields? It's a conspiracy against them, of course! Those stuck-up ivory-tower conventional researchers are just out to preserve the "official line", and not interested in the creative and revolutionary work of a real maveric!
Now this line is patently false, and obviously so if you do the research on the points I've made, but it DOES appeal to human psychology.

We love to side with the underdog, and generally distrust some entity that is seen to be too powerful. The idea of the lone researcher, fighting against the academia, ridiculed, but ultimately proven right, is a powerful one, and the pseudoscientist is eager to point to real life cases of a studious researcher being ridiculed for an idea that, in the end, proved right, and overturned a prior idea.

The thing is though, that for every such case, there are a million actual cranks, who's ideas are not really worth the paper it's printed on. So how do you tell the difference? By looking at the methodology. NO lone researcher that's been eventually vindicated has committed, in their research the sorts of methodological "crimes" as the pseudoscientist regularly resorts to. Nor did they cry conspiracy, or refuse to try to publish and go to the lay audience instead - they persisted, and forced, by the weight of evidence, a change in current thinking. To have a pseudoscientist compare themselves to such brilliant individuals is quite ludicrous.

Now if you aquaint yourself with real history, real archeology, and real science, the difference in quality, and rigor of research standards becomes quite apparent.

And THIS is why I reject the claims of alien archeology as pseudoscience - because I require good standards of evidence, good, honest methodology, in order to put any degree of confidence on the result. Even then I don't declare the official line "The Truth" with a capital T - I'm always willing to change my mind with good evidence. But the chance of me - who isn't a professional - stumbling into good evidence against the prevailing view before the people who look for that evidence as a profession, is quite miniscule.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Ecaiki wrote...

Well Swordfish, since you're so clever perhaps you could explain Puma Punku to the rest of us.

(I found the name of the ruins I was talking about before.)

Somehow missed this one.

See here:

Skeptoid - Episode Guide - Ancient Mysteries

"The Mystery of Pumapunku" is episode #202, the sixth item on the list.

It's a fact-packed little over 12 minutes - well worth a listen for a well researched view sceptical of the alien archeology claims.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I was just walking in Bolivia and found these hard stones! can someone explain what is the material they are made of?

Modifié par Garbage Master, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:34 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

^ Garbage Master - did you click the link I gave above, and listen to the relevant episode?

The materials used at Tiwanaku were sandstone or other locally derived sedimentary rocks for some structures, and andesite from the shores of Lake Titicaca for others.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:49 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

That is what I needed: "We simply don't have a record of what tools and techniques they used."

lost techniques, lost knowledge of the past.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Garbage Master wrote...

That is what I needed: "We simply don't have a record of what tools and techniques they used."
lost techniques, lost knowledge of the past.

Yes indeed, and that in no way adds up to, or even suggests "alien archeology".

Nor does it mean that those lost techniques are somehow inherently better, or a result of a more advanced civilization than the modern one, or even civilizations just hundreds of years ago - it merely means that those techniques of building from solid rock fell into disuse, through the discovery of easier means to build things, and/or the collapse of a central authority that could put to use the great manpower and time needed for such construction projects, with a material as hard and heavy as solid rock.

Real science does not try to make the evidence more than it is - and when we don't know, it is evidence only of one thing: that we don't know.