Trust no one...

Posted by Satipo from webcache22b.cache.pol.co.uk on March 03, 1999 at 00:37:54:

In Reply to: Re: Pseudoscience crap... posted by Anejo Joe on March 02, 1999 at 20:17:34:

Be careful what you term 'pseudoscience'. The notion of what is and what is not 'scientific' exists because of, and is therefore still open to, philosophical debate. Believe me, I did a whole university course on the philosophy of science, and there are many arguable view points. This means that the notion of what is 'scientific' is actually in a state of flux, and changes through the years. From what I've read about traditional Archaeology and its methods (which is a lot), much of what is considered 'scientifically established knowledge' is simply theory that has been passed down long enough to make it seem like unquestionable fact. The term 'pseudoscience' is often applied by conformists to the traditional point of view who have usually blindly taken on these 'established' teachings at university without questioning their origins. Admittedly, Graham Hancock has no 'scientific' background, but many of the people who he works with are considered to have. Take Jonathan West, for example, and the geologist who confirmed to him that the erosion on the Sphinx could only have been caused by lots of water, dating it's creation to thousands of years before the Egyptians. Politics and the organisations that fund research can also play a role in what is and what isn't revealed to be 'scientific' fact. So don't be fooled!

Adios,

Satipo

Follow Ups:

Re: Trust no one... Micah 06:09:48 3/03/99 (2)
- Re: Trust no one... Professor Jones 07:06:18 3/03/99 (1)
  - Re: Trust no one... Anejo Joe 09:53:27 3/03/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Be careful what you term 'pseudoscience'. The notion of what is and what is not 'scientific' exists because of, and is therefore still open to, philosophical debate. Believe me, I did a whole university course on the philosophy of science, and there are many arguable view points. This means that the notion of what is 'scientific' is actually in a state of flux, and changes through the years. From what I've read about traditional Archaeology and its methods (which is a lot), much of what is considered 'scientifically established knowledge' is simply theory that has been passed down long enough to make it seem like unquestionable fact. The term 'pseudoscience' is often applied by conformists to the traditional point of view who have usually blindly taken on these 'established' teachings at university without questioning their origins. Admittedly, Graham Hancock has no 'scientific' background, but many of the people who he works with are considered to have. Take Jonathan West, for example, and the geologist who confirmed to him that the erosion on the Sphinx could only have been caused by lots of water, dating it's creation to thousands of years before the Egyptians. Politics and the organisations that fund research can also play a role in what is and what isn't revealed to be 'scientific' fact. So don't be fooled!

: Adios,

: Satipo

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]