Support NeoGAF

[DownLikeBCPowder]

All these "Ancient civilization" folks use wierd language and don't sound like professional scientists. Graham Hancock is the worst, he'll take a since data point and then spin it off into an entire "lost knowledge of an advanced civilization with a forgotten legacy".

I think our understanding of the sophistication of pre-history is very under developed and spotty at best. Buuuuuuuuut its not like there are any convincing relics from more advanced societies (by advanced, groups with a writing system, pottery, metal working) that so any indication of pre-dating or being superceded by what we DO see....primitive stone tools, fiber and animal product based technology, rudimentary stone working, etc.

Consider what we see today. Artifacts and structures from the roman and greek era still exist, their materials may be recycled but were not all destroyed, and coins, tools, and writings are quite abundant. If there were roman or greek tech level societies before, we would see their roads, tools, and culture perpetuated in some fashion. Even something like the supervolcano that reduced humanity to 2000 breeding pairs (80k years ago) wouldn't wipe out every stone structure, brass or bronze tool, mine, road, or whatever.

I think the pyramids are older than we think, or at least the techniques to make them. Sphinx is as well. But I think we understimate what humans can accomplish when it is a singular 'national' goal and all their labor is applied to the task.

I mean - Rome and Greece were 2-3,000 years ago. These "lost" civilizations would be pre younger-dryas cataclysm so not only is there the actual cataclysm to consider (and the resulting 400ft rise in sea level, ie placing most evidence well under current sea level as humans tend to develop near water), but that was 12,000 years ago. That figure is at minimum 4 times as long in terms of chronological distance. I'm not saying it's factual, just that it is possible.

Yes, a fascinating mystery for sure. I'm currently reading 1177 BC by Eric Cline to get a deeper understanding of the current research. Wild that the Mycenaean Greek written language, Linear B, was completely lost and they had to develop a new one from scratch hundreds of years later based on Phoenician script. How extreme must the circumstances be for things to be that far gone…

Great book! There's a pretty good cliff notes presentation by Eric himself on Youtube if anyone is interested enough to check that out, but not likely to read the actual book. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Clear]

I will happily say that these people are nothing but conmen, grifters or fools themselves. There is no proof there was an ancient advanced civilization.

You've well and truly established what your opinion is! However, what you haven't provided are any compelling arguments as to why any unproven theory outside of that advanced by the mainstream should be summarily discarded. Particularly by lay persons such as myself who's beliefs are entirely insignificant to the academic process.

Your argumentation seems ideological, not based in science or rationality.

Entertaining an idea is not the same as subscribing to, or being a proponent of said idea. The worst you can say about my position is that I'm too open-minded -which is a critique I can very comfortably live with.

 

[peish]

There's no ancient advanced civilisations, people back in those era had too much free time even after all the wine dine and sex. Just get your slaves to dig and build some structures.

Imagine if you use your Gaf browsing time and dedicated it instead to studying phds, you become smarter

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Im really hoping with Ai we can start to get a handle on Linear A . So many great mysteries and cultural understanding remain llocked away on things right in front of us.

The minoans were basically the legendary period of greece preceding the archaic age ...its basically the time all of the greek legends were talking about. So its interesting to know areas and legends which may have given rise to those stories.

It's more likely that what's right in front of us is lists of mundane stuff. Warehouse checklists, court records, and the like. Possibly some religious hullabaloo that we can only half desume by comparing it to other religious hullabaloo from times more or less near to us. Whenever you feel your job is useless, remember that some people spent their whole lives trying to translate private jokes, or the spending reviews of cities long collapsed.

You are all a bunch of idiots if you believe this. This is false, not real, fake. The image is being used our AI generated. The study did not find what they were talking about.

Sir, this is a place where people will rush to the happening bunker when a dog with a X account drops the name Silksong a month before an indie trailer reel.

 

[mathello]

Recently I saw on twitter that, a claim alot of education got erased and destroyed because it used to teach a flat earth. When we discovered fully we are in globe, certain works that may be valuable despite might have just vanished. Cultures find something earth shattering and move on from the past.

Donno how much to credit that.

As for the pyramid lidar. Hope we get peer review and dig if true ! Wouldn't a way to prove it be by scanning the second pyramid ? The structure must also exist in the second.

 

[jason10mm]

I

Recently I saw on twitter that, a claim alot of education got erased and destroyed because it used to teach a flat earth. When we discovered fully we are in globe, certain works that may be valuable despite might have just vanished. Cultures find something earth shattering and move on from the past.

Donno how much to credit that.

As for the pyramid lidar. Hope we get peer review and dig if true ! Wouldn't a way to prove it be by scanning the second pyramid ? The structure must also exist in the second.

don't think any "Ancient source" taught that there was a flat earth. I don't think there was ANY depiction of earth as a flat object like a coin or whatnot. It was well known to be curved as it is OBVIOUS that this is the case as soon as you step outside and see a ship disappear over the horizon, or walk up a hill and then still see that ship. The only people that would ever thing the earth is flat are folks that live their lives inside, distracted by nonsense. The ancients were not that way. Every night they got a MASSIVE light show with the stars and could watch them spin around and could see the moon in far more important ways than 'modern' humans, since it was by far the most critical aspect of operating at night prior to easy access to light so everyone knew the phases by heart.

 

[AJUMP23]

I know who did it.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

You've well and truly established what your opinion is! However, what you haven't provided are any compelling arguments as to why any unproven theory outside of that advanced by the mainstream should be summarily discarded. Particularly by lay persons such as myself who's beliefs are entirely insignificant to the academic process.

Your argumentation seems ideological, not based in science or rationality.

Entertaining an idea is not the same as subscribing to, or being a proponent of said idea. The worst you can say about my position is that I'm too open-minded -which is a critique I can very comfortably live with.

I've already told you the basics:

known facts -> state of knowledge -> new facts -> redefined state of knowledge

Anything that's not bringing new facts to the table is grifting or fooling. Wake me up when they find artefacts of that advanced ancient civilization you cling to.

 

[mathello]

 

[Alebrije]

We need to stop digging , this could lead to the next Dead Stranding

 

[mathello]

We need to stop digging , this could lead to the next Dead Stranding

The most exciting thing for me would be if they find doorways with tunnels down there. Its assumed the spiral is path.

This is built like nothing on earth, what could be down there is beyond comprehension.

The guy in the video also mentioned a rumored library with doorways to the sphynx being possibly excavated soon.

 

[MMaRsu]

So yeah probably a bunch of nonsense

Crazy AI voice tho british man sounds like a california teenager or something

 

[Rentahamster]

 

[Rentahamster]

don't think any "Ancient source" taught that there was a flat earth. I don't think there was ANY depiction of earth as a flat object like a coin or whatnot.

Can't the Biblical description of the Earth be potentially interpreted as flat? It references the circle of the Earth, the corners of the Earth, and a dome above the Earth - things that modern day flat Earthers use to ground their beliefs in scripture.

 

[Clear]

I've already told you the basics:

known facts -> state of knowledge -> new facts -> redefined state of knowledge

Anything that's not bringing new facts to the table is grifting or fooling. Wake me up when they find artefacts of that advanced ancient civilization you cling to.

Every "scientific fact" starts as an unproven hypothesis.

You keep dancing around your own prejudices about whom is entitled to present those hypotheses for investigation. Which is pretty silly considering how many interesting historical sites and artifacts have been discovered by rank amateurs - and obviously as access to technology useful to making such discoveries known becomes more commonplace this seems likely to be a persistent phenomena heading into the future.

I think what's troubled me the most about your position is how bizarrely black-and-white you see the dichotomy between the academy and the amateurs. Has it not occurred to you that there could be elements within outlier theories that could be valid, even when the whole is not?

No, everything that doesn't fit has to be humbug or delusion... Like I noted previously that's dogmatic thinking, almost to the point of religiosity.

 

[Rentahamster]

However, what you haven't provided are any compelling arguments as to why any unproven theory outside of that advanced by the mainstream should be summarily discarded.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially if they upend currently existing research that has already undergone extensive testing and scrutiny. The burden of proof is upon the claim-makers to justify their claims and prove their case. The burden of proof is not on the rest of us to lap up every single thing every Tom Dick and Harry has to say about it and provide an argument as to why we shouldn't take them at face value without proof. The argument is self-evident - the default position is non-belief until such time as the people making the claims provide enough evidence to justify belief in their claim.

 

[jason10mm]

Can't the Biblical description of the Earth be potentially interpreted as flat? It references the circle of the Earth, the corners of the Earth, and a dome above the Earth - things that modern day flat Earthers use to ground their beliefs in scripture.

Eh, I would defer the exact quotes in the bible to experts in the languages they were written in, not how it was translated for the King James version or whatever. A lot of that stuff, like "4 corners of the earth" is likely not what it says in Aramaic or whatever and is more of a culturally based slang term (for example, when folks made square or rectangular maps, you could come up with a "corners of the map" type phrase).

Anyone could observe the phenomenon. Nomadic tribes and sailors both. In fact, the only ones who may NOT observe the curvature of the earth are folks who live their entire lives in one city writing stuff down. So a "flat earth" theory can really only exist once you achieve a certain level of civilization to the point where your thinkers can both think about the nature of the earth but also be pretty removed from observing it directly so they are just making shit up.

And the very notion of a flat earth destroys the idea of a prior more advanced civilization, who presumably would have been very aware of the spherical nature of Earth and would have spread it themselves, or at least spread artwork of a globe and whatnot. So having several cultures across the earth have a professed notion that the earth is a disc (if that is in fact an accurate interpretation of these ancient writings) when all evidence is to the contrary shows that NO ONE picked up this most critical piece of info from the prior culture, which seems odd. That belief can propagate only when it is largely irrelevant if its true or not. Much like our current thoughts about black holes or event horizons. It's largely academic because we will mever be able to experience it, exploit it, or even prove it true in any way. It's just a giant thought exercise.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

I'd like to add the notion that science is constantly improving by building on itself is a joke.

Science doesn't progress in a simple, linear fashion. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, science advances through a series of paradigm shifts.

We like to think our current modern science is probably right, but in reality, it's probably wrong.

Throughout history, science eventually hits a wall, something it can't explain. When these anomalies arise that the current paradigm cannot explain, a crisis occurs, leading to a revolutionary break with the past. Scientific progress is not the accumulation of knowledge over time but instead occurs through periodic revolutions that radically transform the framework of understanding in a given field.

What this means is all the science we love to assume is right is actually likely wrong, and when we move onto whatever is next, it will involve completely abandoning our current frameworks.

Science evolves through these transformative, non-linear revolutions, where everything previously thought to be known is usually tossed for something brand new.

 

[Rentahamster]

What this means is all the science we love to assume is right is actually likely wrong, and when we move onto whatever is next, it will involve completely abandoning our current frameworks.

Disagree.

Since the development of the scientific method, advances in our scientific understanding have been both gradual and revolutionary. Advances in the sciences does not involve completely abandoning our current frameworks. It involves abandoning only what is proved to be false, and keeping what is demonstrated to be a reliable and accurate. it's an update patch, not a complete redo.

It's not that what we love to assume is right is actually likely wrong. What we assume is likely right is actually likely inaccurate compared to what we will discover in the future with further research.

The discovery of genetics did not cause us to abandon the current knowledge of evolutionary theory, in fact it confirmed it. The discovery of general relativity didn't cause us to abandon Newtonian mechanics, it caused us to update it and understand it better on a fundamental level. The discovery of the heliocentric model of the solar system didn't cause us to abandon our understanding of the solar system or accumulated observations, it caused us to update it to be more accurate.

 

[EviLore]

I'd like to add the notion that science is constantly improving by building on itself is a joke.

Science doesn't progress in a simple, linear fashion. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, science advances through a series of paradigm shifts.

We like to think our current modern science is probably right, but in reality, it's probably wrong.

Throughout history, science eventually hits a wall, something it can't explain. When these anomalies arise that the current paradigm cannot explain, a crisis occurs, leading to a revolutionary break with the past. Scientific progress is not the accumulation of knowledge over time but instead occurs through periodic revolutions that radically transform the framework of understanding in a given field.

What this means is all the science we love to assume is right is actually likely wrong, and when we move onto whatever is next, it will involve completely abandoning our current frameworks.

Science evolves through these transformative, non-linear revolutions, where everything previously thought to be known is usually tossed for something brand new.

Understanding in science is basically the formation of models that have predictive power over the current body of observational data. We accumulate more data over time, so the models must be updated as well. Paradigm shifts do happen once a model strains to fit the current data, or when a new, significantly more predictive model comes along, but it is not correct to say, broadly, that everything up to that point is thrown out. Newtonian mechanics, for example, has been "replaced" by newer models, but is still highly predictive under normal circumstances and therefore useful.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

Understanding in science is basically the formation of models that have predictive power over the current body of observational data. We accumulate more data over time, so the models must be updated as well. Paradigm shifts do happen once a model strains to fit the current data, or when a new, significantly more predictive model comes along, but it is not correct to say, broadly, that everything up to that point is thrown out. Newtonian mechanics, for example, has been "replaced" by newer models, but is still highly predictive under normal circumstances and therefore useful.

Something can have predictive value and still be wrong. My point is more about the lack of objectivity. Not that it doesn't have pragmatic value. I agree with you that it still has pragmatic value.

It is actually fair to say the existing framework is thrown out. This is established in Kuhn's work. I was referring to framework when I said everything. Again, of course the old model can have pragmatic value. That's why it was used in the first place despite being wrong. It doesn't stop being useful all of a sudden just because we realize it's wrong. It's still wrong though.

edit: I haven't even touched on the fact that Kuhn also notes that subjective factors and social influences play a significant role in theory choice when it comes to selecting a new model, furthering my point about lack of objectivity.

 

[Rentahamster]

Something can have predictive value and still be wrong. My point is more about the lack of objectivity.

What was your point about lacking objectivity?

It is actually fair to say the existing framework is thrown out. This is established in Kuhn's work.

I don't think it's fair to say the existing framework is "thrown out", based on my reasoning in my previous post. Just because Kuhn said it doesn't mean it's true. Maybe this is a disagreement based on different understandings of terminology, so if you could give one or two examples of existing frameworks that have been thrown out that contrast my examples of how existing frameworks are not thrown out, that would give me a better grasp of where you're coming from.

edit: I haven't even touched on the fact that Kuhn also notes that subjective factors and social influences play a significant role in theory choice when it comes to selecting a new model, furthering my point about lack of objectivity.

Updates to science are contingent on testing the falsifiability of its hypotheses and double checking the gathered data more than subjective factors and social influences. Science needs to be empirical and objective for it to function properly. I'm not sure I understand the basis of this claim without some examples.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

Just because Kuhn said it doesn't mean it's true. Maybe this is a disagreement based on different understandings of terminology, so if you could give one or two examples of existing frameworks that have been thrown out that contrast my examples of how existing frameworks are not thrown out, that would give me a better grasp of where you're coming from.

The answers to all your questions are laid out in detail in Kuhn's seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Sure, just because Kuhn says it doesn't mean it's true, but Kuhn's position is widely accepted in academia. If you are going to rebut it, fine, but you put forward zero arguments in your post. If you don't respond based on reason supported by facts, you start sounding a lot like the conspiracy theorists you're actually criticizing.

As for examples, I would strongly recommend you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as it is fairly short, but I'll go ahead and list some:

• The Copernican Revolution
• Newtonian Physics
• The Darwinian Revolution
• The Atomic Model
• Germ Theory of Disease
• Plate Tectonics (Static Earth to Dynamic Earth)
• Psychology (Behaviorism to Cognitive Psychology)

He lays out in detail exactly how the framework is thrown out in all of the above cases. I do think it logically only makes sense that to rebut his points, you should at least be versed in what he is arguing. I'm not citing to some fringe figure. Thomas Kuhn is profoundly important and influential to the sciences.

Updates to science are contingent on testing the falsifiability of its hypotheses and double checking the gathered data more than subjective factors and social influences. Science needs to be empirical and objective for it to function properly. I'm not sure I understand the basis of this claim without some examples.

tell that to Copernicus

 

[EverydayBeast]

 

[kpopSuperstar]

Those Merkel videos are just decoding errors. If you freeze frame in youtube on the 2 frames where she un-lizardifies and step back and forth between them (< and > on keyboard) you can see other glitches on passengers and the interviewers jacket.

No no no, thats what they want you to believe, this video is proof that she is a lizard from hollow earth, she probably built the pyramids.

I think we can conclude that she built the 2km pillars under the pyramids as well, with the giants from america lifting the stones.

And it was all done in the hidden 5D dimension.

 

[Sgt.Asher]

 

[Rentahamster]

The answers to all your questions are laid out in detail in Kuhn's seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I'm not talking to Thomas, I'm talking to I collect VHS tapes . I want to hear what I collect VHS tapes has to say about the philosophy of science history, not appeal to the authority of some dude.

but you put forward zero arguments in your post.

That's not true. I did. Here's a recap. Argument plus examples showing how my argument played out.

It's not that what we love to assume is right is actually likely wrong. What we assume is likely right is actually likely inaccurate compared to what we will discover in the future with further research.

The discovery of genetics did not cause us to abandon the current knowledge of evolutionary theory, in fact it confirmed it. The discovery of general relativity didn't cause us to abandon Newtonian mechanics, it caused us to update it and understand it better on a fundamental level. The discovery of the heliocentric model of the solar system didn't cause us to abandon our understanding of the solar system or accumulated observations, it caused us to update it to be more accurate.

As for examples, I would strongly recommend you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as it is fairly short, but I'll go ahead and list some:

• The Copernican Revolution
• Newtonian Physics
• The Darwinian Revolution
• The Atomic Model
• Germ Theory of Disease
• Plate Tectonics (Static Earth to Dynamic Earth)
• Psychology (Behaviorism to Cognitive Psychology)

I asked how your examples portray an abandonment of frameworks, because while I agree with you that these breakthroughs were revolutionary, the frameworks that we relied on to make those discoveries were not abandoned, merely updated.

I do think it logically only makes sense that to rebut his points, you should at least be versed in what he is arguing. I'm not citing to some fringe figure. Thomas Kuhn is profoundly important and influential to the sciences.

Respectfully, I don't want to hear an argument from authority, I want to hear what you think and engage with you directly.

tell that to Copernicus

Tell that to Galileo.

I actually cited the heliocentric revolution as support for my case, so it's interesting that you cite the same example as support for your case. This is why I asked you to elaborate on your examples to show how they differ in analysis to mine. If the answer is merely, "Well, the framework that the Sun revolved around the Earth was abandoned", then I would argue that this is an oversimplification of what actually happened over the course of history. It was actually the objectivity of the empirical data which helped birth this revolution, rather than the very subjective feelings of the Church and their social influences which held back this revolution.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

I'm not talking to Thomas, I'm talking to I collect VHS tapes . I want to hear what I collect VHS tapes has to say about the philosophy of science history, not appeal to the authority of some dude.



That's not true. I did. Here's a recap. Argument plus examples showing how my argument played out.






I asked how your examples portray an abandonment of frameworks, because while I agree with you that these breakthroughs were revolutionary, the frameworks that we relied on to make those discoveries were not abandoned, merely updated.



Respectfully, I don't want to hear an argument from authority, I want to hear what you think and engage with you directly.



Tell that to Galileo.

I actually cited the heliocentric revolution as support for my case, so it's interesting that you cite the same example as support for your case. This is why I asked you to elaborate on your examples to show how they differ in analysis to mine. If the answer is merely, "Well, the framework that the Sun revolved around the Earth was abandoned", then I would argue that this is an oversimplification of what actually happened over the course of history. It was actually the objectivity of the empirical data which helped birth this revolution, rather than the very subjective feelings of the Church and their social influences which held back this revolution.

This book is literally philosophy of science 101. I studied this field in college, and this book laid the foundation for pretty much every subsequent course. The fact that you refer to Thomas Kuhn as "some dude" shows how incredibly ignorant you are.

The only philosopher of science who really comes close is Popper. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you're so uneducated on the subject talking to you is simply a bore. Again, this is what I got my degree in. If you were me, would this seem like a fun conversation?

Educate yourself on philosophy of science and hit me up after you've read the basic literature on the subject. This really isn't asking a whole lot, and its fucking hilarious that you think this ask is somehow an "appeal to authority." Kuhn is really basic stuff dude.

If you put in the bare minimum amount of effort and read a bit, I'll be willing to meet you halfway and engage with you on this.

edit: on a side note, grown mean feeling entitled to explanations from other men is embarrassing dude. I don't owe you shit, let alone my time.

 

[Rentahamster]

This book is literally philosophy of science 101. I studied this field in college, and this book laid the foundation for pretty much every subsequent course. The fact that you refer to Thomas Kuhn as "some dude" shows how incredibly ignorant you are.

I know who Thomas Kuhn is. Calling him "some dude" is a way to indicate to you that I'm not interested in hearing his arguments. I'm interested in hearing yours.

its fucking hilarious that you think this ask is somehow an "appeal to authority."

Telling me to read someone else instead of making your case personally is quite literally appealing to an authority.

If you put in the bare minimum amount of effort and read a bit, I'll be willing to meet you halfway and engage with you on this.

edit: on a side note, grown mean feeling entitled to explanations from other men is embarrassing dude. I don't owe you shit, let alone my time.

Dude I'm just trying to engage with what you wrote and feel out your opinions. I gave you concrete examples with reasoning based on scientific history to elaborate on my train of thought. I gave an historical example that directly contradicts your claim of subjectivity-driven science. Would you rather have me quote Popper's falsification theories and expound on his and Kuhn's debate? I wouldn't because I'm not interested in a debate other people have had already. I'm more interested in a discussion with a person I'm sharing this forum with.

 

[EviLore]

"Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

 

[Shadowplay1979]

It's more likely that what's right in front of us is lists of mundane stuff. Warehouse checklists, court records, and the like. Possibly some religious hullabaloo that we can only half desume by comparing it to other religious hullabaloo from times more or less near to us. Whenever you feel your job is useless, remember that some people spent their whole lives trying to translate private jokes, or the spending reviews of cities long collapsed.




Sir, this is a place where people will rush to the happening bunker when a dog with a X account drops the name Silksong a month before an indie trailer reel.

The mundane stuff is the most interesting, grounded and real. Its what connects us to those that came before and realizing someone suffered alone in his bedroom over a woman he longed for 5000 years ago or someone drew cocks on a pompeii bathroom is far more interesting then "the aliens and the super human giant lizard people built the pyramids" imo

 

[jason10mm]

The mundane stuff is the most interesting, grounded and real. Its what connects us to those that came before and realizing someone suffered alone in his bedroom over a woman he longed for 5000 years ago or someone drew cocks on a pompeii bathroom is far more interesting then "the aliens and the super human giant lizard people built the pyramids" imo

No shit. Stuff like babylonian letters from a wayward son begging his mom for more money are PRICELESS!

I long for another trove of scrolls or books found in some cave that flesh out these periods more. It's sad that we have to rely largely on "he wrote then he wrote then he wrote then I write" echos of texts because the real primary sources are long gone.

Sadly, our conversion to mostly digital storage will probably result in a major "Dark age" of this period for the future. Very unlikely that a hard drive or CD survives 500 years in a truck of an attic like some books can.

 

[kevboard]

No shit. Stuff like babylonian letters from a wayward son begging his mom for more money are PRICELESS!

yeah, Babylonian letters are more relatable than most would think.

a boy in a bording school being angry at his mom and trying to manipulate her into sending him new and more stylish clothes, because his class mate has better clothes than him even tho his dad is the classmate's dad's boss, and even tho his class mate is adopted.

you'd think these people were completely different, but then you read stuff like this.

 

[Rentahamster]

yeah, Babylonian letters are more relatable than most would think.

a boy in a bording school being angry at his mom and trying to manipulate her into sending him new and more stylish clothes, because his class mate has better clothes than him even tho his dad is the classmate's dad's boss, and even tho his class mate is adopted.

you'd think these people were completely different, but then you read stuff like this.

 

[poppabk]

As for examples, I would strongly recommend you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as it is fairly short, but I'll go ahead and list some:

• The Copernican Revolution
• Newtonian Physics
• The Darwinian Revolution
• The Atomic Model
• Germ Theory of Disease
• Plate Tectonics (Static Earth to Dynamic Earth)
• Psychology (Behaviorism to Cognitive Psychology)

It's telling that
a) most of the people who initially proposed these theories were long dead by the time they were accepted
b) we haven't really been able to add to this list since the 1960s.

 

[kruis]

No shit. Stuff like babylonian letters from a wayward son begging his mom for more money are PRICELESS!

I long for another trove of scrolls or books found in some cave that flesh out these periods more. It's sad that we have to rely largely on "he wrote then he wrote then he wrote then I write" echos of texts because the real primary sources are long gone.

Sadly, our conversion to mostly digital storage will probably result in a major "Dark age" of this period for the future. Very unlikely that a hard drive or CD survives 500 years in a truck of an attic like some books can.

Absolutely. The biographies of many historical figures of the past centuries wouldn't have been possible without the printed and written documents that survived like diaries, correspondence, bookkeeping records, etc. For instance, we got more than 40,000 (!) original, authentic letters written by Napoleon Bonaparte have survived. Those letters were published in 15 volumes and are now available online. See https://www.napoleonica.org/en/collections/correspondance. We even have Napoleon's love letters to Josephine.

But how many authentic, non digital letters and diaries from current world leaders will there be 200 years into the future? Probably nothing, nobody is writing letters,. And even if some world leaders would keep a diary, how could you ever trust the authenticity of those digital archives after all that time? Digital fakery is already ridiculously easy today, let alone 200 years later.

 

[jason10mm]

Absolutely. The biographies of many historical figures of the past centuries wouldn't have been possible without the printed and written documents that survived like diaries, correspondence, bookkeeping records, etc. For instance, we got more than 40,000 (!) original, authentic letters written by Napoleon Bonaparte have survived. Those letters were published in 15 volumes and are now available online. See https://www.napoleonica.org/en/collections/correspondance. We even have Napoleon's love letters to Josephine.

But how many authentic, non digital letters and diaries from current world leaders will there be 200 years into the future? Probably nothing, nobody is writing letters,. And even if some world leaders would keep a diary, how could you ever trust the authenticity of those digital archives after all that time? Digital fakery is already ridiculously easy today, let alone 200 years later.

There are gonna be some spicy signal chat logs though

On the one hand we have lots of video footage now, which is great for seeing what happened. But you are right, journals, diaries, private letters, they help you understand what happened. But then you get a ghost written 'auto-biography' of someone and realize its 95% crap, then you wonder about all those other auto-biographies from across time and how reliable ANY of them really are.

 

[jason10mm]

It's telling that
a) most of the people who initially proposed these theories were long dead by the time they were accepted
b) we haven't really been able to add to this list since the 1960s.

Nah, there are plenty of things just as revolutionary. It's just we are IN IT right now, and don't have the perspective. Just the gene therapy shit alone would have garnered a dozen nobel prizes back in the day if a singular person could take credit for it.

AI is gonna be another one of those things. Either as revolutionary as the steam engine or as devastating as the Black Plague, time will tell.

 

[Liopleurodon]

All those history classes were for nothing...

 

[poppabk]

Nah, there are plenty of things just as revolutionary. It's just we are IN IT right now, and don't have the perspective. Just the gene therapy shit alone would have garnered a dozen nobel prizes back in the day if a singular person could take credit for it.

AI is gonna be another one of those things. Either as revolutionary as the steam engine or as devastating as the Black Plague, time will tell.

I'm more talking about how maybe the paradigm shifts have kind of stopped and we have entered a new phase of science progression. Stuff like CRISPR has revolutionized genetics in terms of what we can do, but it didn't fundamentally alter our understanding. Epigenetics again was a paradigm shift in the field of genetics but not in the sense that Kuhn was talking about.
We have seen massive progression in the fields of science that are neither Kuhn type paradigm shifts but are also not really 'normal science' either.

 

[Rentahamster]

b) we haven't really been able to add to this list since the 1960s.

Really? I think we've had a our fair share of big discoveries since then. For example, using AI, we've found 200 million protein structures in 2020. Up until then, we only had about 200 thousand or so. Remember the Folding @ Home days?

Did AI Solve the Protein-Folding Problem?

Now that AlphaFold has tackled biology’s greatest challenge, scientists can turn to even bigger questions

magazine.hms.harvard.edu

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm more talking about how maybe the paradigm shifts have kind of stopped and we have entered a new phase of science progression. Stuff like CRISPR has revolutionized genetics in terms of what we can do, but it didn't fundamentally alter our understanding. Epigenetics again was a paradigm shift in the field of genetics but not in the sense that Kuhn was talking about.
We have seen massive progression in the fields of science that are neither Kuhn type paradigm shifts but are also not really 'normal science' either.

Trying to categorize modern science through the lens of the 1960s isn't going to provide useful illumination about the fruits of our endeavors. CRISPR has indeed revolutionized what we can do, and I'd argue that it's altering our understanding of genetics as we speak because of all the new experiments and opportunities available to use from that discovery. These science philosophers can only post hoc create a description of science by looking back on history, so you're not going to get much useful analysis of the contemporary era until the history books have been written 20 years later. We have seen massive progression in science, yes. But forcing it to fit those 1960s models and failing to match doesn't mean the science isn't amazing. It means those old models aren't as relevant as they used to be.

 

[nkarafo]

This guy plays too much Serious Sam

 

[kevboard]

This guy plays too much Serious Sam

probably. any his followers probably have the brain capacity of Serious Sam enemies

 

[Rentahamster]

"Don't believe everything you hear on TikTok"

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

so, they basically agree in the first round. This "discovery" is dead, right?

 

[IDKFA]

Every "scientific fact" starts as an unproven hypothesis.

You keep dancing around your own prejudices about whom is entitled to present those hypotheses for investigation. Which is pretty silly considering how many interesting historical sites and artifacts have been discovered by rank amateurs - and obviously as access to technology useful to making such discoveries known becomes more commonplace this seems likely to be a persistent phenomena heading into the future.

I think what's troubled me the most about your position is how bizarrely black-and-white you see the dichotomy between the academy and the amateurs. Has it not occurred to you that there could be elements within outlier theories that could be valid, even when the whole is not?

No, everything that doesn't fit has to be humbug or delusion... Like I noted previously that's dogmatic thinking, almost to the point of religiosity.

I personally have a problem with people who believed stuff like Aliens built the pyramids or Atlantis was a real place because frankly, there is no evidence of this.

I don't agree that every "scientific fact" starts as an unproven hypothesis. These facts begin with observations and questions, which are then subjected to systematic investigation. Hypotheses are then tested and refined through experimentation and analysis, and only those supported by evidence become accepted theories.

Frankly, the burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims and these require substantial evidence to be considered credible.

I agree with you that amateurs can contribute to scientific inquiry. However, expertise and qualifications are important as they ensure that research is conducted rigorously and that data is interpreted accurately. is it possible that aliens helped ancient civilizations, or advanced societies like Atlantis existed? Sure. It's possible, but possibility does not equal probability. Without credible evidence, these claims are just speculative.

 

[kevboard]

"Don't believe everything you hear on TikTok"

and here I was thinking TikTok is rhe pinnacle of journalism and science

 

[kevboard]

 

[LimanimaPT]

So, has all this nonsense been peer reviewed?