Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cafffaro t1_j0z9cei wrote

Reply to comment by zendonium in How realistic is “The future of” on Netflix? by alakeya

That’s not how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

2

zendonium t1_j0z9osu wrote

I think one should explain why they refer to someone as a crackpot first.

4

cafffaro t1_j0zcby5 wrote

Because he has no credentials, makes no evidence based claims, invents wild theories, and is universally acknowledged as a pseudoscientist?

3

zendonium t1_j0zex9u wrote

We universally acknowledged there was only 1 planet less than 100 years ago.. it means nothing that something is 'universally acknowledged'.

His theories don't seem that wild to me. We know that modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years. Why wouldn't some of them behave like us and have civilisations?

Many of his claims are backed by evidence, such as new, more refined carbon dating estimates and newly discovered ancient sites.

Just because someone doesn't have an official degree in something doesn't make them any less credible. I run multiple businesses but never studied business in any formal setting. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have a degree in biology? Does his drawing on the human form have no value because he didn't have the proper credentials?

2

cafffaro t1_j0zhnq3 wrote

Also, rereading your comment, I’m not sure where you got this thing about people thinking there was only one planet less than 100 years ago. Humans have been aware of planets for thousands of years. The word itself comes from Ancient Greek.

6

zendonium t1_j0ziu18 wrote

Yes, sorry, I meant no other planets outside our system.

1

NotShey t1_j0zi47v wrote

>We universally acknowledged there was only 1 planet less than 100 years ago.. it means nothing that something is 'universally acknowledged'.

This is just flat out wrong and shows a deeply flawed understanding of the history of astronomy. Mars has been well understood to be a rocky planet since at least the 1600s.

3

zendonium t1_j0ziqyo wrote

Sorry, I meant no other planets outside our system.

1

NotShey t1_j0zla79 wrote

Not having the technology to detect exoplanets doesn't mean people thought they didn't exist. They were postulated since at least the 1500s, and people were actively looking for them over a hundred years ago (even if the tech to find them wasn't quite there yet).

We've had a pretty good feel for the structure of the macro world for a lot longer than I think you are giving people credit for.

1

zendonium t1_j0zp9hf wrote

Postulated by a few yes, but universal consensus was unsure if they even existed.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zrkqk wrote

I think it’s important to acknowledge that universal consensus also means something different today. We have the peer review process, which is objectively a sounder way of determining the validity of claims (compared to “the Pope agrees” or whatever). There’s a reason people like Hancock avoid submitting their claims to peer review.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zg73v wrote

It definitely means something when something is universally acknowledged. Yes, science has been wrong in the past, but it is highly unlikely that one dude vs the entire scientific community is going to have a legitimate point. And Graham’s points are not compelling. The thing is, we do have an idea of what people have been up to for the last 150k years. Lots of fascinating stuff, and archaeologists are constantly trying to expand our knowledge of early man. So, leaving aside the natural reaction of feeling somewhat personally insulted that someone would think all of us archaeologists are so stupid, I pose to you the question: if there truly were compelling evidence for lost cities, why wouldn’t archaeologists be the ones trying to publicize this? After all, countless sites have been discovered and publicized by archaeologists in the past decades…some which are pretty impressive.

What are the “more refined” C14 dates you’re referring to? Carbon dating usually gives you a window of 100-300 years.

Also, the idea that Da Vinci was some untrained amateur is really untrue.

0

zendonium t1_j0zikk5 wrote

I'm not saying all archaeologists are stupid and have missed some clear writing on the wall, but I do think people can be close-minded in many areas of science. If you don't agree with what someone is saying then tell us why their ideas are stupid. Instantly labelling someone a crackpot (appreciate it wasn't you but you picked up the thread) immediately silences the debate and for a layman like me (not an archaeologist) I still don't understand why his ideas are wrong.

I'm probably mistaken about the carbon dating. I read something about the dating of something being changed. Again, not an archaeologist.

If someone said the earth was flat, I would laugh. But then if someone said explain to me why the earth isn't flat, I'd be able to absolutely prove the flat earther wrong with hoards of evidence.

So how is it that pyramids appear all over the world, supposedly made by hunter gatherers?

1

cafffaro t1_j0zkh27 wrote

Definitely, I understand where you are coming from. And I'll also say that a lot of the onus is on archaeologists here, since we haven't always done a great job of making what we do accessible to the public. A lot of that has to do with the shit funding we receive from public institutions, but that's another conversation altogether. Personally, I'm happy to discuss these things.

> So how is it that pyramids appear all over the world, supposedly made by hunter gatherers?

So, two things here. I am assuming by "hunter gatherer" you mean societies that did not primarily engage in agriculture. Depending on your definition of "pyramid," most of the very famous examples (the pyramids at Giza, for example) were most DEFINITELY built by agricultural societies. Earthen structures, meanwhile, like the pyramids or "mounds" at Cahokia, were built both by agricultural and "mixed" societies who relied on a combination of settlement + nomadic approaches to gathering resources. And yes, Cahokia (near modern St. Louis, MO) was a veritable CITY, something that has been pretty much completely ignored by modern Americans (but not the archaeologists who have studied it). If you want to find a real "lost city," look no further.

Basically, and this is a bit of an oversimplification but generally true, there is a linear relationship between the amount of surplus resources a community gathers and the likelihood they are going to build monumental features in stone. But pre-agricultural societies also like building fancy stuff when they can. I guess I fail to see why that's a mystery.

As for the pyramid itself, I'm not sure why it would be surprising that many civilizations in different parts of the world would all build large monuments as temples or funerary markers. Between them, lots of differences characterize the different "pyramid" structures built by various civilizations.

1

zendonium t1_j0zox9y wrote

Thanks for your explanation. As a layman, I find this stuff absolutely fascinating. I personally believe the Egyptian pyramids were cast like concrete. It seems the simplest explanation. It is strange to me that so many pyramid shapes popped up in different continents. Is it that the shape in particular is just attractive to humans, or was it part of a shared culture going further back as Hancock posits?

Also, is it true, as the documentary implies, that many stone circles are basically ancient calenders? That was most intriguing to me. I know when we look at star configurations over time that it can lead into '9-11 = -2 so 2022 is the 2nd coming of christ' territory, but i did find it fascinating.

1

cafffaro t1_j0zqu93 wrote

Why do you think the pyramids at Giza were cast? Concrete hadn’t been invented yet, and we know that they were made of limestone and granite blocks.

I think the inclination to build upwards is pretty easily explained. Early religion was based on the natural world, and the most obvious way the natural world is observed is via the change of the seasons and cycle of day and night. So people, much like today, fixated on the sky. What’s out there?

Something like this would explain why early societies liked to build “upward” monuments. But again, beyond this pretty simple fact, the specific characteristics of pyramids vary pretty widely across the world. Plus, a lot of early structures (eg the temples at Malta) don’t really seem to be going for elevation.

I think the extent to which Neolithic buildings reflect astronomical patterns is a matter of debate. In some cases it seems pretty cut and dry, but some of the other stuff I’ve seen seems like a stretch. Overall, I am inclined to believe that, yes, the desire to map out time and the movement of celestial bodies went hand in hand with spirituality and played a big role in motivating early building projects.

1

zendonium t1_j0zsx09 wrote

I think the pyramids were cast using a mixture of limestone and granite. They might have built wooden frames (dyes) to cast the mixture, then once set, burnt the wood. There have been wooden structures found inside the great pyramid. This way, the building of the pyramid is easily explained. Lots of people lugging buckets up and down the structure to pour mixture into a dye. I can't conceive of any other way it could've been done.

They might have used heat or a chemical reaction (like concrete) to liquefy and solidify the mixture.

1