Official vs. Alternative Ancient History

[Paintman]

Unfortunately, in the REAL world, the methods of business, profit, and maintenance of the status quo trump Scientific Method.

....... and Human Nature is the one constant in the universe.
Just a couple points on The Shroud regarding authenticity. There was a recent controversy that the coins over the eyes were counterfeited coins available during Pilots time because they had spelling mistakes. A priest who was a hobbyist numismatist has proven that most of Pilots coinage had spelling mistakes and even narrowed it down to a run of coinage that is seen placed over Christ's eyes.
And the pollen from the area is correct and the way it is embedded in the correct cloth made during the time. If it's a hoax, it would have coincided to the earliest written accounts believed to be between 600 and 800 ad. That would coincide with the dawn of the Dark Ages .Then the documentation picks up in 944 ad where it was displayed at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. After it was sacked there are a few missing centuries before it turned up in Turin Italy .

 

[Paintman]

Utah, I don't necessarily think that we are disagreeing. But I know we are putting a finer point on polar opposite ends.
If that makes any sense.

 

[crux]

I really don't understand that statement.

In school we learn how the world SHOULD work but they never teach how it REALLY DOES work.

 

[TexDanm]

The problem with so much of the "science" having to do with history is that in order for it to be accepted as history people with vested interests in protecting their pet theories being the ones to judge any new ideas possible validity.

Most of the time in order for new ideas to make inroads into acceptable possibilities older ideas have to die with their proponents. I remember when older people often would tell me that THEY were not descended from monkeys. Their ideas about where people came from mostly started, ended, and revolved around, "In the beginning...".

I personally never had an issue with reconciling my religious beliefs with the more scientific versions of the creation of mankind. I accept that a god-like being might not be required to operate strictly on the basis of the revolution of our planet and its path around the sun.

A lot of our accepted human evolution has been twisted and required to meet certain specific parameters as it has grown and evolved. It was totally unacceptable when it was first proposed that man evolved and came out of Africa. It was so unacceptable that a European ""scientist"" made a ""find" of a more acceptable pre hominid in Europe.

Eventually, a nonscientist pointed out that the ""found"" skeleton was actually made out of bones from several species like apes, gorillas, and, humans. Eventually, they bit the bullet and accepted the real proof. Even today there is an accepted idea that primitive peoples were less intelligent than us.

The fact is that they were most likely on average smarter than us simply because the stupid were not protected and allowed to lay around and have a bunch of kids that they would not- could not support. Their world was less scientifically advanced but then individually they were mostly able to do all of the things that were needed to thrive in their world. Turn off the power in this world today and in a month the population would be much smaller.

Human nature is mostly a myth past the needs of eating SOMETHING, shelter, and reproduction, and even those are often disagreed on. What one group of people will swear is human nature, another group wouldn't do to save their life. That is why throughout history people have had so much trouble when they first meet strangers from far away lands.

I believe that a lot of what we consider as MODERN math and physical sciences has been discovered and then lost with the fall of the civilizations over and over. Very few people are knowledgeable about the ins and outs of most modern technologies and the sad fact is that in a period of societal collapse those are not the most likely to survive. The majority of the people in any high-level civilization have little need or knowledge of the higher mathematics, chemistry, or the root facts of physics. Sadly many don't even know any of the basics these days. We even with all of our knowledge and advanced sciences are only one generation away from being right back near the beginning. There are a lot of things that are possible that could be almost a world-ending or at least culture ending disaster.

 

[GoneWestUtah]

Lot's of "could bes", not a ton of evidence, which is at the heart of the matter. And the conspiracy theories on "vested interests" may sound good but I don't buy it. Peer review is what shoots down theories or bolsters them, via experimentation and repetition of results. It takes time, for a good reason.

Science and it's methods are not to blame for the weaknesses of people who don't follow it. It's like throwing belief in Christ on the fire because of the actions of pedophile priests. There just isn't an argument there.

I am still firmly of the opinion that all of the bitching about "alternative theories" not being taken seriously is just sour grapes. Hard evidence is needed, period. Not "could have beens" or "what abouts" or "it makes sense" or one or two outlying data points.

I have no vested interest in "conventional history", myself, but the evidence I see, the same that others see, isn't enough to make me change my mind about the history books yet. It can be interesting, thought-provoking, but I sill haven't seen any testable proof to almost all of the non-conventional claims.

Stepping out of this thread, I have nothing more to say. It was interesting seeing where people stand though. Thanks everyone!

 

[Lynne]

I can appreciate everyone's attitude, but science never pronounces things as "fact". The Scientific Method allows us to deduce something based on evidence- until other evidence displaces that deduction. Science is a constantly-refined attempt to explain the natural world.

It's religion that pronounces things as set, forever, and that's that. Science only says "this is our best idea based on the hard evidence we have at present".

The problem with those espousing "alternative histories" is that they are only saying "look, this could have been the truth", and don't actually provide any testable evidence. Science calls these "Just So" stories and I must agree. I am trained as a scientist and I always test paradigms. That is what Science is, not a Big Book of Facts. The quicker people lose that attitude, the quicker they will start to understand science and stop fearing or resenting it.

I can make working batteries from just about any fruit or vegetable and two dissimilar metals. It's not out of the realm of possibility that someone else discovered that during the bronze age, for instance.

I wish a lot of people pushing alternative theories would publish a reviewed paper, instead of just throwing stuff out on the internet. The general public are really crappy critical thinkers.

I think the facts that make these “out of place parts” so interesting is that they don’t fit the science. This is what makes them mind benders and have us questioning our history . To call people who question the norm as crappy critical thinkers is not right in my opinion. There are may hypothesis that are not proven but many scientists tout them around like the Bible. I will leave that there. You all know what they are. People have every right to speculate on things that are out of place and don’t make sense. Weather we can prove something doesn’t mean we can’t reason together and isn’t that what we are all doing here on the PNF?

 

[Lynne]

Utah not to disagree with your views on science..... in a perfect world. But it can always be politicized and monetized and always has been.
Exhibit A - Piltdown man was supposedly The Missing Link. It was supposedly discovered in a Scottish Pete bog in the 1800 s. Instead it was put together with human bones and orangutan bones by an anthropologist who wanted to make a name for himself.
Exhibit B - when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated, it really never wasn't in 1979. The keepers of the shroud knew that the scientist from Cambridge who was leading the study had a very wealthy benefactor who wanted it to be declared a medieval forgery. The scientists went along with it because he thought this test would lead him to being promoted to head of his Department.
Add to this that the Italian scientist were blocked out of this research and were mad.
Now the Shroud is owned by the parish in Turin, under the guidance of the local Bishop. So the Italian scientist gave the English scientist what they absolutely knew was a repair done in the Early Middle Ages. The Italians knew this because there is a lot of documentation of repairs, the cloth was woven differently, and it was made with cotton.
So the upshot is the Shroud of Turin was never carbon-dated.
Exhibit C is Gobleki Tepe, and the current disputes over the age of the Shpinx. That throws a whole monkey wrench into the accepted timelines.
Exhibit D was something that came out when I was in grad school and it was a big thing. In the 1800 a French scientist declared that brain cells cannot regenerate. Well it turned out that everybody took this for granted until an MIT student published her doctoral thesis that in fact brain cells can regenerate. So this pretty much illustrates that scientists don't often check the work of previous scientists. When they do there is a lot of bureaucratic resistance like the MIT student found out.
I always felt that real science includes the words " I don't know."

Excellent!!!! ^^^^THIS^^^^