Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Scientists Debunk themselves into a corner

Page 7 of 13 [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

07 May 2025, 2:44 am

MatchboxVagabond wrote:
First off, I'm pretty much losing interest here. Archeology isn't generally a science, it's more or less the same thing as history other than that it's dealing with civilizations that are typically too old to have written or oral records available for study. If we're saying that archeology is in general a science, the history would also be. And, I think it's pretty clear that history isn't a science. There is an experimental branch that concerns itself with actually doing whatever it is that people think ancient people were doing based on the materials and markings that were found, but that's really not enough to make archeology as a whole a science any more than the existence of engineering focused researchers existing makes engineering a science.

As far as statistics go, of course it's descriptive statistics. Things like how many cars there were in various areas is going to be a contributing factor into things that happen. If the Ford V8 hadn't been relatively common, but not too common the bank robbery sprees that led to the formation of the FBI probably would have ended earlier and possibly with different outcomes. And, having a bunch of people dying due to various diseases by people on both sides of a war is going to be something that a historian is going to consider when studying particular battles and campaigns. There just isn't really any way around it when that information is available.


Descriptive statistics = illustrating a point in a historic document
analytical statistics = hypothesis testing using the scientific method



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

27 May 2025, 6:23 am

cyberdora wrote:
I'm fairly certain we can go with 9000 + just looking at the undulating erosion trails along the walls of the Sphinx enclosure.
Image

Just because the heaviest rains stopped at 9000 years it doesn't mean the erosion patterns were not a product of continuous exposure from an early era. I am triangulating with a) archaeo-astronomical patterns of Orion and the position of the pyramids and b) the total lack of cartouche's inside the pyramid which is also typical old kingdom and pre-dynastic megalithic structures which lack the vanity decorations made by the pharaohs who wanted their imprint all over major monuments.


One minor additional point - according to the book by Boston geology professor Robert Schoch, the erosion fissures along the sphinx and Giza Plateau are caused cumulative heavy rains over thousands of years, not the last rain shower. this means the erosion patterns reflect long exposure to heavy rain which only happened between 9000-12,000 years, this means the original date Graham Hancock quoted (12,000 years ago) is likely to be when the plateau structures (including the sphinx) were first constructed.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,128
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

27 May 2025, 7:36 am

There were periods of heavy rains since then, too. Probably heavier. If I remember correctly, there were some periods of heavy rains and flooding there something like 2,500 or 3,000 years ago.



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

27 May 2025, 5:24 pm

kokopelli wrote:
There were periods of heavy rains since then, too. Probably heavier. If I remember correctly, there were some periods of heavy rains and flooding there something like 2,500 or 3,000 years ago.


While severe drought is thought to have started in 4200 years ago ending the old kingdom, Schoch is using his expertise as professor of geology in a prestigious university to suggest the erosion fissures gives away the the specific accumulated time-frame. the critical point is the erosion patterns aren't seen on structures which are 5000 years old which suggests to him that it covers a longer period of continuous rain going back further in the past. His logic makes sense.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,128
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

27 May 2025, 6:20 pm

cyberdora wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
There were periods of heavy rains since then, too. Probably heavier. If I remember correctly, there were some periods of heavy rains and flooding there something like 2,500 or 3,000 years ago.


While severe drought is thought to have started in 4200 years ago ending the old kingdom, Schoch is using his expertise as professor of geology in a prestigious university to suggest the erosion fissures gives away the the specific accumulated time-frame. the critical point is the erosion patterns aren't seen on structures which are 5000 years old which suggests to him that it covers a longer period of continuous rain going back further in the past. His logic makes sense.


As I understand it, many geologists and archaeologists think he is wrong about his conclusions.

I do not believe his claims that the Sphinx was built during the Younger Dryas at all. Where would the civilization necessary for such a major undertaking have even come from?



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 3:44 am

kokopelli wrote:
I do not believe his claims that the Sphinx was built during the Younger Dryas at all. Where would the civilization necessary for such a major undertaking have even come from?


How do you explain Gobleke tepe and Karahan tepe

Image

Back to Egypt, we know Narmer, the very first dynastic pharaoh was a narcisisst and war monger who euphemistically "united" all of upper and lower Egypt
Image
Image

At the far right of this scene are ten decapitated corpses with their heads placed between their legs and their severed genitals placed atop each head. These figures are generally understood to be victims of Narmer's conquest. I think these pharoahs wiped out the original advanced pre-dynastic Egyptians who likely built everything in Egypt, the war-like pharaohs simply re-purposed what was already there.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,128
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

28 May 2025, 7:50 am

So the fringe is correct and everything else is wrong?

You seem to even think that the Younger Dryas was anything but a period of hard times.

If radio carbon dating says an object is 3,000 years old and you say that it is 10,000 years old, why should we trust your numbers at all?



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 4:56 pm

No, it's about who is right or wrong? the fringe as you refer to represents the innovative/creative segment of the population. We simply ask questions.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,022
Location: Right over your left shoulder

28 May 2025, 5:01 pm

cyberdora wrote:
No, it's about who is right or wrong? the fringe as you refer to represents the innovative/creative segment of the population. We simply ask questions.


That seems to be the typical way contrarians try to frame things, it's just that unfortunately they almost always lack the critical thinking to contribute anything of value to creative or knowledge based fields.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Real power is achieved when the ruling class controls the material essentials of life, granting and withholding them from the masses as if they were privileges.—George Orwell


cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 5:01 pm

kokopelli wrote:
If radio carbon dating says an object is 3,000 years old and you say that it is 10,000 years old, why should we trust your numbers at all?


You forget you can't radiocarbon stone/rock. Much of the megalithic structures found around the earth appear to go back well before the agreed commencement of civilisations of 5000 years ago.

As far as "trust", you can refer to the German archaeologists who dated Gobleke tepe to 11,600 years ago. I don't think anyone disagrees with the dating. It now sets a precedent for re-dating other parts of the world where megalithic cultures arose. Chalk one up for the fringe :lol:



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 5:05 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
That seems to be the typical way contrarians try to frame things, it's just that unfortunately they almost always lack the critical thinking to contribute anything of value to creative or knowledge based fields.


I disagree, critical thinking is weighing up strengths and weaknesses of evidence. Sceptics in this context tend to only focus on weaknesses (debunking) which I would posit isn't thinking in a critical manner.



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 5:08 pm

I am playing an important role called "dedunking", which is debunking those who only engage in debunking.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,022
Location: Right over your left shoulder

28 May 2025, 5:11 pm

cyberdora wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
That seems to be the typical way contrarians try to frame things, it's just that unfortunately they almost always lack the critical thinking to contribute anything of value to creative or knowledge based fields.


I disagree, critical thinking is weighing up strengths and weaknesses of evidence. Sceptics in this context tend to only focus on weaknesses (debunking) which I would posit isn't thinking in a critical manner.


If only there were strengths to most of the conspiracy theory nonsense you try to peddle here, instead it's always the same pattern of moving goalposts and muddying the waters until the skeptics get tired of engaging with BS and treating that exhaustion and frustration as a victory.

I mean, it's a victory socially, but it doesn't mean the nonsense has been substantiated meaningfully.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Real power is achieved when the ruling class controls the material essentials of life, granting and withholding them from the masses as if they were privileges.—George Orwell


cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,816
Location: Australia

28 May 2025, 5:38 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
If only there were strengths to most of the conspiracy theory nonsense you try to peddle here, instead it's always the same pattern of moving goalposts and muddying the waters until the skeptics get tired of engaging with BS and treating that exhaustion and frustration as a victory.


I'm not peddling anything, It's called friendly discussion. And no the waters aren't as muddy as you claim.
Sceptics called UFOs a figment of crazy people's imagination - then in 2017 the government admitted there are anomalous objects. Suddenly its the sceptics who have changed the goal posts (you know that but don't want to admit)

Sceptics laughed and lampooned Graham Hancock in the late 1980s for saying advanced civilisations existed before 5000 years ago. then in 1992 German archaelogists confirmed an advanced sophisticated civilisation in Anatolian peninsular dated to 11,600 years ago (precisely the date Hancock claimed). Suddenly its the Hancock sceptics who have changed the goal posts (again).

I am not suggesting there is no role for scientific scepticism, but lets be open to possibilities that we are capable of ontological shift if and when the evidence is bought forward rather than deriding people who ask these questions.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,022
Location: Right over your left shoulder

28 May 2025, 5:43 pm

Yet Graham Hancock is still widely regarded as a crank despite him having a broken clock moment.

But, while focusing on moved goalposts go back and read your first post in this thread and try to follow where you've dragged the goalposts after failing to successfully support your initial argument. Trying to debate you is like playing chess with a pigeon.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Real power is achieved when the ruling class controls the material essentials of life, granting and withholding them from the masses as if they were privileges.—George Orwell


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,128
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

28 May 2025, 6:54 pm

cyberdora wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
If radio carbon dating says an object is 3,000 years old and you say that it is 10,000 years old, why should we trust your numbers at all?


You forget you can't radiocarbon stone/rock. Much of the megalithic structures found around the earth appear to go back well before the agreed commencement of civilisations of 5000 years ago.

As far as "trust", you can refer to the German archaeologists who dated Gobleke tepe to 11,600 years ago. I don't think anyone disagrees with the dating. It now sets a precedent for re-dating other parts of the world where megalithic cultures arose. Chalk one up for the fringe :lol:


There are plenty of things inside that can be dated. Things like seeds and papyrus. And probably pollen on the walls, floors, and ceilings.

With that, they can narrow down the various activities greatly. The oldest samples aren't going to be anywhere close to 10,000 years old.