Friday, October 2, 2009

Forgotten Civilization: The Science of Questioning or the Questioning of Science?

I'm inclined to believe that our prehistory is a lot more interesting than what the majority of scientists would have us believe. The problem is that archaeologists, paleontologists, and the like limit themselves to preconceived notions about prehistory, scientific dogmas, and of course, whatever will get them the most funding.

I bring this up because mainstream science refuses to study anything that might bring into question what scientists already believe about prehistory. It seems that any time a prehistoric anomaly is found, the scientific establishment is quick to explain it away as something mundane and forget about the whole thing or just ignore it. It's unfortunate that it is this way.

The reason I like researchers like Graham Hancock is because they dare to ask the questions that the scientific establishment want to ignore. Hancock himself is not a scientist but a journalist, but in many ways, I think he behaves more like a 'true' scientist than some of the scientists do. The biggest irony of this to me is that centuries ago, the religious establishment ostracized guys like Copernicus and Galileo for daring to suggest that the 'established fact' of the sun revolving around the Earth was false. Today, when someone brings up a new idea or suggests that the scientific establishment is wrong, the scientific establishment behaves similarly to the medieval religious establishment.

The best example of what I mean can be seen in Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Some people may watch that film and misinterpret the point it was trying to make. It's not just a film trying to prove the validity of Intelligent Design, it's a film about how the scientific establishment behaves when someone dares to suggest that what the scientific establishment believes is wrong. All of the scientists interviewed in the film were credentialed. But the ones that chose to say or write something that didn't fit with what was already 'established' either lost their funding or lost their jobs. One professor was even blacklisted and couldn't find a job teaching anywhere….all because she merely mentioned something about Intelligent Design during a cell biology class.

Intelligent Design was the topic of choice in Ben Stein's film, but scientific dogma isn't limited to just the theory of evolution. I was watching a film by Graham Hancock called Underworld yesterday that pointed out some underwater anomalies that archaeologists refuse to take serious. Archaeologists seem to be perfectly content ignoring these anomalies or explaining them away as some type of erosion and then just forgetting about the whole thing. Part of the problem is the lack of funding. But I think pride is probably a bigger part of the problem than the lack of funding. I think most of these tenured guys just don't want to find anything that may dispute what they have so proudly taught about prehistory for so many years. A lot of the younger guys are probably afraid to break away from what is 'established' for fear of being ostracized in the scientific community. I think another part of the problem is the theory of evolution. Simply put, the scientific establishment refuses to consider anything that may suggest advanced civilizations existed during prehistory because it doesn't fit with what they already believe about prehistory. Their research is dictated by their preconceived notions of what the prehistoric world was like. They already believe prehistoric man consisted of nothing more than hunter/gatherers, so they assume anything that suggests otherwise is wrong, misinterpreted, hoaxed, or some kind of odd looking erosion.

The irony here is that the scientific establishment knows there was an ice age thousands of years ago. With that in mind, isn't it ironic that the scientific establishment has no interest in underwater archaeology (typically, most underwater archaeology done today is in regards of old shipwrecks…not prehistoric civilizations)? Think about it. Most cities and civilizations of recorded history are built where? Near coastal regions and rivers. So isn't it likely that ice age civilizations would have been built near coastlines and rivers? After the ice began melting, those coastlines would have been flooded. So if the coastlines of the last ice age are now submerged, wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? Apparently the scientific establishment doesn't think so.

Here is a picture of part of the 'Bimini Road':





Mainstream science has said this is erosion. If it is erosion, then my first question is why is this erosion confined to this one spot? Why is it not a mile away in another direction? Why that spot? And how did it erode that way? For that matter, what do they expect it to look like in the future? Presumably, if it has eroded to look the way it does now over a period of time, then it must still be in the process of eroding. So what do they expect it to look like a 1000 years from now?

Here is some more 'erosion' from Yonaguni, off the coast of Japan:









I could ask the same questions about this that I asked about the Bimini Road.

These are just a couple of popular examples of archaeological anomalies found underwater. There are numerous others and Hancock cites some of them in his film. So again I ask the question – Wouldn't the best place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater? If so, why do mainstream scientists always try to explain away anomalous finds as something mundane like erosion? Are they afraid they might find something that will hurt their pride? Or do they just form a hypothesis based on their preconceived notions of prehistory?  Or is it just the lack of funding? I think it is probably a combination of all those factors.

Imagine if North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia sunk today. Thousands of years from now, would there be scientists who assume that all men living during the 21st century were tribal men living in hunter/gatherer societies? Would they formulate their entire interpretation of 'prehistory' on the ruins of tribal civilizations found in the Amazon and Congo? Would they stomp their feet and bang their fists on the table because someone dared to suggest that there may be ruins of advanced civilizations underwater? Would the ruins of New York City be called 'erosion'?

I'm not criticizing the scientific method here. I'm criticizing the scientific establishment. And I realize that preconceived notions are not limited to the scientific establishment. Many people have preconceived notions about something, and oftentimes, research – scientific or not – is inspired by the desire to confirm a preconceived notion. Sometime research forms a belief, sometimes beliefs form the research. But what irks me about the scientific establishment is that they try to portray the image of being objective and logical, yet they are not always as objective and logical as they claim to be.

Wouldn't the logical place to look for ice age civilizations be underwater where ice age coastlines used to be?

I have a notion to believe that prehistory is much more interesting than what mainstream science has portrayed it to be. J

11 comments:

  1. Jeff;
    A most awesome post!!! Yahoo! I love to hear someone putting the same observations together that have bothered me for ages. Sometimes, I wonder if I'm the only one who sees it. You seem to have a really good concept of what's gone wrong. I always assumed that it's like the bigfoot field. With the exception of Jeff Meldrum, there's not a lot of scientists or university staff willing to admit to a belief in bigfoot, much less want funding to pursue it. The minute someone says "I believe in this unbelievable thing," the scientific community runs from them like they're a quack. I understand their hesitancy to do anything that might stop funding. Unfortunately, though our scientists should be treated like and paid like rock stars, they have to fight to try to keep a program alive by following something that's more mainstream, such as how a plant might be of pharmaceutical benefit instead of what strange undiscovered plants are in the rainforest. It's a lot like politics with $ coming from "sponsors" basically. I agree about Bimini and I admit that Edgar Cayce's views on Bimini also intrigued me. There's also another underwater find near Japan that scientists like to say happened somehow naturally but it's completely unnatural. Look at the newest find of ancient man that's a million years older than Lucy? It confuses and baffles us even more about our origins and what we think we know about evolution. I'd be more inclined to believe it's even possible that intelligent life evolved below the waterline as it did above the waterline. Simply going onto land didn't necessarily make us smarter, so why not the sea creatures that were evolving have attained some intelligence at the same time? We've found runes and evidence of the Norse being here earlier than we thought. We have pyramids in South American and Egypt--why not travel back then? I can't even imagine 1000 years from now when archeaologists dig up a bobble head what they'll think it meant--a god? As you were saying, they need to open up their minds and their interpretations. It reminds me a lot of ghost hunters who carry on the same old line from long ago such as "ghosts remain because they don't know they're dead," "they drain your batteries..." These are things passed down without any merit. I like to step outside of any pre-conceived notions and treat it logically and with as many angles as possible. That was a great post. I could talk about this forever--apparently!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeff;
    BTW, I put a post on my blog for folks to read your post--it really impressed me. Hope you don't mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No I don't mind at all! Glad you liked it and I hope others will too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, and speaking Edgar Cayce, I just watched a documentary about him the other day...he really was unique even among psychics. He was apparently a very humble man and didn't charge for readings (although some people would give money anyways), and he did many thousands of readings over his life time. He made a lot of readings about the future and the past, but I think most of the readings he did were personal readings for people. Most of the personal readings he did were apparently very accurate. He apparently thought his 'gift' worked better when he was near the ocean, which was one reason why he moved to Virginia Beach. I thought that was interesting concept and wondered if any other psychics had made that same observation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i got here from Autumnforest's blog and i agree, great post, quite fascinating!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for stopping by Marbella!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd be disappointed if establishment scientists WEREN'T blockheads, because then there would be nothing for US to do. People like Hancock et. al. remind me of the plants that get their roots into a big rock and slowly, but surely crack it apart. The plants are small and fragile compared to the rock, but they are dynamic, while the rock is static. Eventually the rock must break.

    Btw, have you ever heard of the "aquatic ape" theory of human origins? If not, please google "aquatic ape theory" or "aquatic ape hypothesis". Its the best idea about human origins to come along in 150 years, and it has the advantage of being totally heretical.

    ReplyDelete
  8. interesting stuff and i like your perspective. scientists are sometimes one sided.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, I've seen a show or 2 about underwater finds like these and feel that the "erosion" explanation is bullshit. I also believe that there is a lot of ancient evidence still undiscovered.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking of Edgar Cayce, I believe I read somewhere that he was also a 33rd Degree Mason, or if not a 33rd Degree, at least a very high-ranking one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.

    "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse,

    Anybody that believes in the Scientific Establishment can NOT also believe in the Scientific Method. To simply accept what others say is true, instead of finding out for yourself, is obviously NOT scientific. Yet, here we are, with the scientific establishment still dictating the "truth" to the rest of us. I'm not even certain that it's a lack of funding that keeps it that way. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I fear that there are more sinister workings in place attempting to block the truth about many scientific "facts".

    ReplyDelete