Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon?

Posted by Mark Indy from emb-r1-p492.cybertrails.com on April 26, 1999 at 12:11:04:

In Reply to: Re: On what basis do you label Hancock a loon? posted by Indiana Mungo on April 26, 1999 at 06:53:35:

: : I have read a number of Hancock's books and enjoyed them all. The Sign and the Seal is probably his best. But he does, in many instances, fly in the face of established scholarship. The authorities in the field have spent years researching their findings, and their conclusions are not based solely on their individual works, but on those of their colleagues as well. If you actually have the opportunity to talk with experts and to ask them questions, it becomes readily evident where the non-mainstream theories fall apart. And they fall apart quickly. It is not a case of the established experts not wanting to accept something new, it is that they do not accept something they know to be false.

:
: I understand, what you are saying, but your last sentence is far too idealistic. While they obviously dismiss ideas they know to be false, scientists also make the mistake of dismissing ideas that they only think they know to be false in the light of previous, perhaps weighty, but by no means conclusive evidence. The root of the problem is that scientists rarely start their own research from square one. Most of them are university taught and have been force-fed age old theories without much opportunity, or perhaps the inclination, to question their worth. Life is short and information has to be amassed quickly in order for their research to appear worthwhile to their superiors. So they save themselves time by basing new research on what has been written before. They, therefore, take a short-cut and unquestioningly embrace previous research conclusions to be the truth, much as Christians take the easy road of using the Bible as the foundation of their beliefs and opinions in life. The resulting ladder of scientific research is a rickety one, and no one on it likes it to be shaken. During my years at university I have spoken to various experts in related fields and have found two distinct reactions to Hancock's work. Those who deliver a swift dismissal of Hancock's ideas without really considering the details and those who dismiss them at first, ponder them a while, and then state that there may be something there, but that Hancock's methods are not very scientific. Scientists rarely agree across the board. You must remember that Hancock doesn't work entirely alone in his research and often consults experts in different fields. I admit that he has a knack of listening only to the experts that support the direction he is going in, however, this does not mean that his ideas are false, merely that his methods are biased. But you could argue that all scientists are necessarily biased in their research methods. They are not robots, after all, and most would welcome the glowing recognition given to those who successfully push back the boundaries of knowledge, and so a short-cut here and there is often conveniently adopted and overlooked. Indiana Mungo.
:

As you have said above, Hancock and others like him are no experts in any of the fields they write about... they themselves rely on research conducted by others, except that they tend to embrace the facts that support their theories, to the exclusion of mounds of data which don't, and completely ignore that which contradicts them. This is sensationalizing archaeology and ancient history to make it more appealing to the masses, Indiana Jones fashion, rather than true academic research. If you look at the history of archaeology, all of the major discoveries of the last two centuries came about careful building upon the research conducted by others... Schliemann, Evans, Breasted, Carter, Petrie, etc. following established scientific method, which in turn served as the basis of modern knowledge about those respective periods, knowledge we know to be essentially correct except for a few grey areas which still need elucidation. I fail to understand why we are so quick to credit aliens and Atlanteans and such for the monuments of human achievement, as these people always seem to do.

Regards,
Mark

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: 
: : : I have read a number of Hancock's books and enjoyed them all.  The Sign and the Seal is probably his best. But he does, in many instances, fly in the face of established scholarship.  The authorities in the field have spent years researching their findings, and their conclusions are not based solely on their individual works, but on those of their colleagues as well.  If you actually have the opportunity to talk with experts and to ask them questions, it becomes readily evident where the non-mainstream theories fall apart.  And they fall apart quickly.  It is not a case of the established experts not wanting to accept something new, it is that they do not accept something they know to be false.

: : 
: : I understand, what you are saying, but your last sentence is far too idealistic. While they obviously dismiss ideas they know to be false, scientists also make the mistake of dismissing ideas that they only think they know to be false in the light of previous, perhaps weighty, but by no means conclusive evidence. The root of the problem is that scientists rarely start their own research from square one. Most of them are university taught and have been force-fed age old theories without much opportunity, or perhaps the inclination, to question their worth. Life is short and information has to be amassed quickly in order for their research to appear worthwhile to their superiors. So they save themselves time by basing new research on what has been written before. They, therefore, take a short-cut and unquestioningly embrace previous research conclusions to be the truth, much as Christians take the easy road of using the Bible as the foundation of their beliefs and opinions in life. The resulting ladder of scientific research is a rickety one, and no one on it likes it to be shaken. During my years at university I have spoken to various experts in related fields and have found two distinct reactions to Hancock's work. Those who deliver a swift dismissal of Hancock's ideas without really considering the details and those who dismiss them at first, ponder them a while, and then state that there may be something there, but that Hancock's methods are not very scientific. Scientists rarely agree across the board. You must remember that Hancock doesn't work entirely alone in his research and often consults experts in different fields. I admit that he has a knack of listening only to the experts that support the direction he is going in, however, this does not mean that his ideas are false, merely that his methods are biased. But you could argue that all scientists are necessarily biased in their research methods. They are not robots, after all, and most would welcome the glowing recognition given to those who successfully push back the boundaries of knowledge, and so a short-cut here and there is often conveniently adopted and overlooked. Indiana Mungo.
: :

: 
: As you have said above, Hancock and others like him are no experts in any of the fields they write about... they themselves rely on research conducted by others, except that they tend to embrace the facts that support their theories, to the exclusion of mounds of data which don't, and completely ignore that which contradicts them.  This is sensationalizing archaeology and ancient history to make it more appealing to the masses, Indiana Jones fashion, rather than true academic research.  If you look at the history of archaeology, all of the major discoveries of the last two centuries came about careful building upon the research conducted by others... Schliemann, Evans, Breasted, Carter, Petrie, etc. following established scientific method, which in turn served as the basis of modern knowledge about those respective periods, knowledge we know to be essentially correct except for a few grey areas which still need elucidation.  I fail to understand why we are so quick to credit aliens and Atlanteans and such for the monuments of human achievement, as these people always seem to do.

: Regards,
: Mark

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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