The study did actually indicate which percentage was legal, and which was illegal. It didn't use caffeine as a drug. But it did use pain killers, opiates, and anti-depressants (which are all just as dangerous as illegal drugs).
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?
- Thread starter basscooker
- Start date
The study did actually indicate which percentage was legal, and which was illegal. It didn't use caffeine as a drug. But it did use pain killers, opiates, and anti-depressants (which are all just as dangerous as illegal drugs).
You're still missing the point. Evolution occurs...I've watched it happen in the lab.
Darwinistic evolution is the theory by the way.
Name me one scientific, "fact" for the record? We don't use the term in science.
For the record, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm just a chemist, with a little biological experience.
No, that's not how it works.
Theories are, in layman's terms, facts (however, you won't see that term fact thrown around). The mechanics of them can change as new evidence and findings are discovered. One of the better ways I've heard this explained is with the analogy - Theories are like cars. Parts of the car may be swapped with newer and better parts that work more efficiently, but at the end of the day you still have a car. Likewise, the theory of evolution, as a whole, is the car. New things may be discovered and certain parts of theory might have to be reworked or changed, but at the end of the day the theory will still stand intact.
It would still be called a theory. Volumes have been written about this. I didn't choose the following website because of its focus on evolution, but just because it provides a nice explanation:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
By convention, scientists adopt the position that a theory is always assumed to be held on a tentative basis, pending the introduction of robust contradictory evidence.
That's all we've got. We don't have a category of truth that's more certain than theories.
I think that the humility of science is also the reason why science has made such remarkable progress in the past few centuries. By gradually replacing one humble theory with a slightly better humble theory, we have arrived at theories that are tentative in principle, but that can be treated as proven for all practical purposes. This includes theories such as electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation, and evolution.
So what if evolution and the Big Bang Theory happened? How it got there is still a mystery. If you think about long enough, eventually something unexplainable and magnificent happened to create life. It just had to have.
Yes, science says, there was nothing and then bang, hello, hello, universe. Lately, Hawking talks of a pre-universe, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. I think that's superstitious. 
there's no way to gather empirical evidence for that argument.
The worst part is he doesn't really have a coherent theory about what it was, just that it was. I say, and where did that come from? and so on. Infinity has no beginning or end. It merely IS. IS is everything and it is magnificent. And still they want to explain it. Good luck.
there's no way to gather empirical evidence for that argument.The worst part is he doesn't really have a coherent theory about what it was, just that it was. I say, and where did that come from? and so on. Infinity has no beginning or end. It merely IS. IS is everything and it is magnificent. And still they want to explain it. Good luck.
In 1620, the intellectual authorities of the day assumed that science would eventually reach a dead end, or that it would smoothly merge with theology. It's not inconceivable to me that there will always be yet another puzzle for science to solve. I hope so, for the sake of my job security.
But so far, there isn't even the faintest indication that there is an end of science, that we are anywhere close to it, or what it might even look like. It might be turtles all the way down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
The only research I looked at was the link you provided. You seem to be upset that I actually read it in detail and brought it to bear on the discussion. I didn't eschew a single claim in your link - I rejected the superficial, overgeneralizing conclusions that you drew from your own link.
What you call "walls of text" is what prose composition looks like. Some of us try to go beyond a sound bite.
No, actually, this is not what you said. What you SAID was that a) thanks to ergot, "people" (by which I assume you mean ancient people) went around in "constant dream states" and couldn't tell the difference between hallucination and reality, and that ruling religious classes (you never specified of which societies, or if you meant all of them around the world for all time) deliberately used hallucinogens as part of their religion.
As here (post #214):
and here (post #219):
So if now we're not supposed to be discussing whether large populations of people were under continual hallucinogenic influence, but whether religion (in general, or which religion in specific?) might have had its origin in a single hallucinatory experience, fine. That's a harder proposition to prove, because while an ongoing phenomenon leaves some hope of leaving historic evidence behind, there is no way to document a one-off event of this kind. One may like to imagine that Moses, or Zoroaster, or whoever, was on drugs, but how would one ever prove it?
Scholars say that societies were complex because scholars actually analyze the evidence and find complexity. Were ancient societies hierarchical? Sure. Did ruling classes use violence to enforce their dominance? Sure. That doesn't mean the societies were not also complex - using violence was not ALL that they did. What does any of this have to do with the discussion?
On a separate line of discussion, there seems to be some confusion over the terms "fact" and "theory." A fact is an observed phenomenon - something you can actually tangibly see or measure. A theory is an explanation of the facts that is supported by enough evidence to win general acceptance. An explanation that does not yet have enough evidence to win that acceptance is a hypothesis, which is roughly equivalent to a speculation.
Micro-evolution - one microbe changing into a new form, roaches developing immunities to poisons, etc. - is a fact, as scientists can actually observe it and track it. Macro-evolution, in the sense of whole species evolving over millions of years, was a hypothesis in the days of LaMarck and Darwin. The accumulated evidence of the fossil record, and the observation of micro-evolution to confirm the basic mechanism, has won evolution acceptance as a theory. Theories do sometimes have discrepancies emerge which can lead to their being modified, or ultimately discarded in favor of new theories. With our present state of knowledge, there's not much odds of evolution being discarded any time in the foreseeable future; there just haven't been discrepancies that seem to warrant this. But I would say that while evolution is far more than a hypothesis, it shouldn't be taken so sacrosanct as to declare that it could not ever be displaced by a new, better theory, should such a new theory arise.
Micro-evolution - one microbe changing into a new form, roaches developing immunities to poisons, etc. - is a fact, as scientists can actually observe it and track it. Macro-evolution, in the sense of whole species evolving over millions of years, was a hypothesis in the days of LaMarck and Darwin. The accumulated evidence of the fossil record, and the observation of micro-evolution to confirm the basic mechanism, has won evolution acceptance as a theory. Theories do sometimes have discrepancies emerge which can lead to their being modified, or ultimately discarded in favor of new theories. With our present state of knowledge, there's not much odds of evolution being discarded any time in the foreseeable future; there just haven't been discrepancies that seem to warrant this. But I would say that while evolution is far more than a hypothesis, it shouldn't be taken so sacrosanct as to declare that it could not ever be displaced by a new, better theory, should such a new theory arise.
I'm not worried about the links I posted, the fact is you have posted not one to back yourself. A sixth grade teacher would fail you. You cited nothing.
Besides, the topic of this thread does not require me to have a degree in science. It's a blue sky, what if? topic and scenario. I originally was raising the thought that what if it was something from the environment messing with ancient's perceptions, combined with a lack of knowledge of what was happening.
^As for your post directly above this, well said. Truly, science is humble enough that it knows when to move on In the face of evidence.
Besides, the topic of this thread does not require me to have a degree in science. It's a blue sky, what if? topic and scenario. I originally was raising the thought that what if it was something from the environment messing with ancient's perceptions, combined with a lack of knowledge of what was happening.
^As for your post directly above this, well said. Truly, science is humble enough that it knows when to move on In the face of evidence.
Wow, I didn't realize my sixth-grade teacher was grading my posts here. I don't think she played bass.
It's called the "burden of proof." I was not the one proposing ergot or hallucinogens as an explanation for where stories about heavenly beings come from. I do not carry the burden of proof. The one proposing the explanation has the responsibility to provide evidence supporting their explanation. The rest of us are free to simply express skepticism until such evidence is provided. The links you did offer in support of your speculation, when I read them closely, did not bear out the conclusions you drew from them. Why should I have to come up with counter-links?
When I publish in peer-reviewed academic journals I footnote plenty - indeed, I'm often criticized for a rather Germanic tendency to footnote excessively. On an internet forum I tend to relax a little.
The hallucinogen hypothesis is fine as speculation, and to do you credit, you initially proposed it as such. I don't buy it, and I don't see that there's any evidence to support it. At least, not universally - there are some Native American societies where we can document the ritual use of narcotics, and I've alluded to Soma from early Hinduism, which might have been something similar, only we don't know for sure what it was - might have just been alcohol. Not much I can think of for evidence from other premodern societies. In the absence of such evidence, I prefer to rely on other explanations.
Well, that sheds some light on the level of understanding we're dealing with here. Why don't you look up "theory" in the dictionary? Well, here. I'll do it for you.
the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
I'm grateful for the theory of gravity because it keeps me stuck to the earth, even though it's not a fact.
To be fair, it's not the theory of gravity, but gravity itself that keeps you stuck to the earth. It's the theory of gravity that allows you to reasonably assume that gravity will still work the same way tomorrow - so you don't have to worry about tying yourself down to your bed!
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
I worked with a guy who believed that Dinosaur fossils were 'planted' by God to challenge the faith of men. He also believed that 'climate change', while real, was actually God expressing his displeasure at the immorality of humanity.
You learn not to bother debating with certain people.
hdrobert696 said in his post that he used the link that YOU posted to find the information he reported. Why would he need to paste the same link again?
No, we've actually repeatedly observed "macro-evolution" - if by "macro-evolution" you mean speciation.
There is quite a lot of evidence for hallucinogen use among the Kievan Rus', Ancient Egyptian, Mycenaean, Ancient Greek, Vedic, Maya, Inca and Aztec cultures.
In fact most native American (north/central/south) have significant evidence of shamanic use of hallucinogens.
