where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?

[MatticusMania]

That's what pseudoscience is Anything that relies solely on speculation and faith and cannot be tested according to the scientific method is pseudoscience.

pseu·do·sci·ence/ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/Noun: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

What Im saying is that this is not a matter of science at all.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·odnoun

1.A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

 

[BioDriver]

Misread, my mistake. I can't wait for finals to be over....

 

[fdeck]

Just to play along with your idea of ET giving us technology and then leaving us alone just to observe us - one reason they might do that is to see how we develop on our own without too much outside influence. By observing us they might be able to better piece together the story of their own evolution and see how certain species can go from 'cave dwellers' into space traveling cosmonauts.

LOL, you just invented Free Will.

 

[Munjibunga]

In my defense, I tried as hard as I could to make sure I left everything that was theorized, theorized. I'll clear the air on my beliefs of this stuff:

-I believe humans were not an evolved product of an ape or anything in that genus. We just don't mesh with any other creature here. We're takers, not givers like the rest of the organisms on Earth.

Aside from our morphological similarities and the fact that chimps share 98 percent of our genes. We give and take like any other animal, only we use technology to do much of it. We are animals.

-I believe that there are creatures from the 10th planet called "Nibiru" that have visited Earth numerous times when Nibiru's orbit comes too close to Earths.

You know this while no one with access to the highest technology available has ever detected any evidence for such a planet, let alone its purported inhabitants.

-I believe Nibiru's peculiar orbit is the reason why we had the great flood that was documented in the Bible and ancient texts.

And of course, the folks 2,000 years ago had a leg up on us with their ability to detect the existence of such things. Also, could you give us the chapter and verse in which Niribu is mentioned in the Bible, an acknowledged source of scientific information?

-I believe that all of these ancient structures lined up with the stars has something to do with alien life.

Again, I'm craving a source of evidence for this. We all learned that the ancients built structures that aligned with astronomical features at certain times of the year, but there's neither any need for nor evidence of involvement by aliens in accomplishing this.

-Polytheism was the predominant form of religion for thousands of years. It would kind of make sense considering these alien beings visited us from Nibiru. *Shrugs*

Diversity of superstition is not evidence of visitations by aliens. Some cultures needed more gods to oversee different aspects of their existence. More frugal cultures could get by with a single god to cover all the bases. *Rolls eyes*

My beliefs are suspect to change at any time given any theory. I'm an out of the box, crazy, free-thinker and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Perhaps we would know more about us and the universe if the world spent more money on these subjects instead of weapons to kill each other.

We actually do spend billions of dollars on such research, and none of it over the last thousand years has uncovered any evidence to support a single one of your otherwise unfounded beliefs. Free-thinking is great sport, but it's completely irrelevent if done in the absence of any scientific understanding or tangible evidence. What you call free-thinking many would call living in a fantasy world.

We do agree on one thing. I too wish the government would spend less money on war and more on scientific research. I would point out, however, that most of the scientific discoveries that end up improving our lives are initially funded under military budgets.

Are my beliefs "insane"? Sure . Plus I am insane. But remember, it's us insane folk that make the best musicians.

No argument here.

 

[BassyBill]

This has been a really interesting thread. One of the most interesting things has been the stark division between people on the basis of what they actually need to really believe something is true. Some of us see a need to believe things only on the basis of some very sound evidence. Others are not so constrained. They see belief as a much more personal thing, with consequently much greater freedom.

I think that division is profound beyond words, and grasping it is crucial to understanding what we mean by being "human" and any further cultural development. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Munjibunga]

This has been a really interesting thread. One of the most interesting things has been the stark division between people on the basis of what they actually need to really believe something is true. Some of us see a need to believe things only on the basis of some very sound evidence. Others are not so constrained. They see belief as a much more personal thing, with consequently much greater freedom.

I think that division is profound beyond words, and grasping it is crucial to understanding what we mean by being "human" and any further cultural development. Fascinating stuff.

Greater freedom? As in freedom to be ignorant? I must be misreading you Bill ... you're worrying me.

 

[Munjibunga]

That's why I said earlier that I was perfectly happy to think there is life on other planets, somewhere in the universe. There's nothing implausible about that as speculation. But that's very different from saying that there is credible evidence of its existence, let alone that it has visited earth.

Speculation, indeed. Statistically it seems plausible, maybe even likely, that life exists elswhere. But as you said, there is no reason to believe that life does exist elsewhere. It's an open question yet to be answered. At the risk of starting another war of semantics, believing in life elsewhere is just superstition, nothing more.

Now having a hunch, that's completely different.

 

[BassyBill]

Greater freedom? As in freedom to be ignorant? I must be misreading you Bill ... you're worrying me.

No need to worry, mate! I meant freedom in the most literal sense of the word with no necessarily positive associations at all implied.

Assuming freedom where we should not and thinking that it's a good thing that we're somehow "free" to believe what we like is a tragically crippling misconception and one of the greatest intellectual handicaps I can imagine. Unfortunately, it's still, even in these days of "enlightenment", very, very widespread and seems to be being propagated more and more widely rather than less as time passes.

It also seems to be a cultural thing related to our historically based (and entirely understandable) positive interpretations of the word "freedom". The naive idea that universal, personal freedom always has to be a good thing, in an unquestioning way, does remove some aspects of analytical responsibility. Nobody should think they are free to believe whatever they choose. That way lies the madness of delusion, as should be obvious from some of the discussion here in this thread.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

LOL, you just invented Free Will.

I was just having fun

But seriously, this stuff is silly

 

[pacojas]

a UFO could land on the lawn of the White House and some people would absolutely dismiss it as a hoax,... even an eye-witness. we will explain away what we fail to comprehend just as we were taught/conditioned to.

that is the nature of the beast!

 

[BassyBill]

a UFO could land on the lawn of the White House and some people would absolutely dismiss it as a hoax,... even an eye-witness. we will explain away what we fail to comprehend just as we were taught/conditioned to.

that is the nature of the beast!

Actually, being an eye witness to something is one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Just sayin'.

 

[onosson]

A big part of the problem with discussions like this is that people just don't agree on basic terms like "belief" and "theory".

If two people on either side of this "issue" were to give their own definitions of these terms as they use them, I suspect they would be quite different.

 

[Buxtehude]

I can buy into this theory more then the evolution theory.

I believe in evolution but no a P bass with flats. Let's re-discuss this after December 21 next year. That apocalypse will prove to be bogus like all the others. I'll still believe in evolution but not flat wound strings

 

[hrodbert696]

Maybe by way of clarification of how I see this: I do think that it is perfectly acceptable for rational people to believe things that they cannot prove, particularly if said things are not susceptible of proof. To throw out another line from Contact, "Do you believe your father loved you?... Prove it." Most of us believe in a great many things that have not actually been proven to us.

When I teach my history students about witchcraft trials, my first question is to ask them if they believe that they are constantly surrounded by invisible creatures that can harm, sicken, even kill them. Most students claim they don't believe in any such thing. I then mock surprise and ask them why they don't believe in germs. Most of us have not actually had the existence of germs proven to us, let alone that they are the cause of illness; we take it on faith. Most of us who don't hang around laboratories believe in germs for exactly the same reasons that people in the past believed in demons and witchcraft.

The issue then is not simply whether the existence of ancient astronauts can or can't be proven; it is whether the unproven assertion that they existed is a proposition worthy of being taken on faith. The faith of the average person in germ theory is warranted because it is plausible and makes sense of our actual experiences with illness, sanitation, and health care. One may, of course, argue back and forth over whether religious faith is likewise plausible and makes sense of life experience or not, but let's leave religion aside here.

My problem with ancient astronaut theory is not only that it is unproven, but that I also find it unworthy of being taken on faith. If it is true, and human beings were NOT capable of building pyramids or whatever, then it leads to conclusions about human capability and the forces that govern human history that neither accord with my actual observation of humanity, nor is more plausible than saying that humans could do these things on their own.

 

[BassyBill]

There's certainly a difference in status between those theoretical aspects of biology that account for the evolution that has occurred during natural history and "ancient astronaut" theory!

To think otherwise just shows how difficult a task those of us who work in science education have and will continue to have.

 

[BassyBill]

Maybe by way of clarification of how I see this: I do think that it is perfectly acceptable for rational people to believe things that they cannot prove, particularly if said things are not susceptible of proof. To throw out another line from Contact, "Do you believe your father loved you?... Prove it." Most of us believe in a great many things that have not actually been proven to us.

When I teach my history students about witchcraft trials, my first question is to ask them if they believe that they are constantly surrounded by invisible creatures that can harm, sicken, even kill them. Most students claim they don't believe in any such thing. I then mock surprise and ask them why they don't believe in germs. Most of us have not actually had the existence of germs proven to us, let alone that they are the cause of illness; we take it on faith. Most of us who don't hang around laboratories believe in germs for exactly the same reasons that people in the past believed in demons and witchcraft.

The issue then is not simply whether the existence of ancient astronauts can or can't be proven; it is whether the unproven assertion that they existed is a proposition worthy of being taken on faith. The faith of the average person in germ theory is warranted because it is plausible and makes sense of our actual experiences with illness, sanitation, and health care. One may, of course, argue back and forth over whether religious faith is likewise plausible and makes sense of life experience or not, but let's leave religion aside here.

My problem with ancient astronaut theory is not only that it is unproven, but that I also find it unworthy of being taken on faith. If it is true, and human beings were NOT capable of building pyramids or whatever, then it leads to conclusions about human capability and the forces that govern human history that neither accord with my actual observation of humanity, nor is more plausible than saying that humans could do these things on their own.

This is an interesting post, but I'd raise just a couple of things in response:

1) I suspect your use of the words "invisible" and "creatures" when referring to microbes might (deliberately, of course) influence the answers your students give. If you used the words "living things" instead, you might get a completely different response. Maybe worth a try, out of interest?

2) I would strongly disagree with your assertion that people believe in "germs" for the same reasons that produced earlier beliefs in the supernatural. Second hand evidence rather than first hand evidence is not the same thing at all as no evidence. I guess you could say that the average person's belief in microbes is based on faith, but it is a kind of faith that is qualitatively very, very different to faith in the supernatural or faith in alien visitation - it's not the same sort of intellectual construct at all and considering the two things equivalent puts one on the same road to madness that I mentioned earlier.

EDIT - In some ways, I think the obvious confusion about faith in the existence of microbes and faith in demons and witchcraft is very closely related to our strong and very human over-estimation of the validity of visual evidence that I referred to above. Belief in something you haven't seen definitely does not mean that believing in germs is in any way similar to believing in demons, just because both are invisible (for very different reasons).

 

[fdeck]

Most of us have not actually had the existence of germs proven to us, let alone that they are the cause of illness; we take it on faith. Most of us who don't hang around laboratories believe in germs for exactly the same reasons that people in the past believed in demons and witchcraft.

Most of us learned about the discovery of germs in school. Even if we didn't, we have grown up with naturalism, and most of us apply naturalism to our daily lives, most of the time -- even those who reserve a special corner of the universe where naturalism breaks down.

When somebody proposes an idea, such as germs, we can instinctively think of ways to prove it for ourselves if we want to. We know the routine for assigning -- and accepting -- burden of proof. Both natural and supernatural causes of AIDS were declared in the 1980's. I think that most people could have guessed which one was likely to be accompanied by evidence, and which one wasn't. We're smarter than you give us credit for.

We know the routine for demons and witchcraft as well: Avoid the burden of proof, and try to hand it away like a dead raccoon, if somebody tries handing it to us.

So I think we know that there are two diametrically opposing approaches to burden-of-proof: One welcoming, and the other hostile. And we have developed good instincts for knowing which approach is likely to be applicable in a given situation.

We know that the line can't be crossed, but within either realm, burden of proof becomes applicable. For instance, believers in witchcraft might argue amongst one another about particular details, and might demand proof in the form of referring to an authoritative book of witchcraft.

 

[BassyBill]

Most of us learned about the discovery of germs in school. Even if we didn't, we have grown up with naturalism, and most of us apply naturalism to our daily lives, most of the time -- even those who reserve a special corner of the universe where naturalism breaks down.

When somebody proposes an idea, such as germs, we can instinctively think of ways to prove it for ourselves if we want to. We know the routine for assigning -- and accepting -- burden of proof. Both natural and supernatural causes of AIDS were declared in the 1980's. I think that most people could have guessed which one was likely to be accompanied by evidence, and which one wasn't. We're smarter than you give us credit for.

Precisely. To continue with the AIDS analogy, the two views you mention may or may not both be based on faith, depending entirely on how you define the term, but in no way at all are they intellectually equivalent.The idea that modernity forces beliefs on us in precisely the same way that history somehow did may be appealing to some, but it's just not a justifiable assertion. Most of us have moved on, to some significant extent.

 

[Gard]

Free-thinking is great sport, but it's completely irrelevent if done in the absence of any scientific understanding or tangible evidence. What you call free-thinking many would call living in a fantasy world.

...or, as others have said:

Having an open mind is a good thing, just make sure it's not so open that your brain falls out.

People that buy into this clap-trap have experienced the "brain falling out" syndrome. They have BELIEVED so hard that reality no longer matters to them, no amount of hard evidence will sway them from the religious-like fervor of their convictions, no matter how out of touch with anything resembling reality they may be.

 

[Shanannigan]

I play a game when I watch that show, called count the fallacies. It's full of them, especially appeals to authority, and arguments from ignorance. I think the History Channel as a whole has become quite a joke. If they want to go for outlandish entertainment, and validating unsupported conspiracy theories to spear head their programming, I think they need to at least change their name.

At least TLC stopped calling itself The Learning Channel. I think History Channel needs to do the same, because it's sad that some people actually take them as an authority on history.