Rise of a 'master' woo myth of our history

[stereologist]

The master story of woo also needs to have some explanation for the lack of evidence. It often comes in the form of natural disaster and the amazingly rapid decomposition of man's materials. The poleshift or ECD is still a big favorite. Volcanism, meteor impact, and comet impact are all in the running for natural means of wiping out evidence of a previous advanced  civilization. There are also unnatural means of destruction. The spiral seen over Norway in which a Russian missile launch failed has been claimed to  be an unknown destructive force. There are also claims that natural forces would erase evidence in a few thousand years.

These are the excuses . I wonder if there will be a new excuse in the coming master story of woo.

[kmt_sesh]

4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Hey where is Lord Harry to say something succinct and mildly contumelious?

 

Good grief, man! "Contumelious"? I have an advanced degree in English and you're always sending me to my dictionary.

[kmt_sesh]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The master story of woo also needs to have some explanation for the lack of evidence. It often comes in the form of natural disaster and the amazingly rapid decomposition of man's materials. The poleshift or ECD is still a big favorite. Volcanism, meteor impact, and comet impact are all in the running for natural means of wiping out evidence of a previous advanced  civilization. There are also unnatural means of destruction. The spiral seen over Norway in which a Russian missile launch failed has been claimed to  be an unknown destructive force. There are also claims that natural forces would erase evidence in a few thousand years.

These are the excuses . I wonder if there will be a new excuse in the coming master story of woo.

LOL Spot-on!

I'm so tired of impact events. Every other fringe idea is underscored by an impact event, no matter how weak or disputed the evidence. It's the all-purpose fringe answer.

[Carnoferox]

3 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

LOL Spot-on!

I'm so tired of impact events. Every other fringe idea is underscored by an impact event, no matter how weak or disputed the evidence. It's the all-purpose fringe answer.

*cough*Younger Dryas impact*cough*

[Hanslune]

5 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Good grief, man! "Contumelious"? I have an advanced degree in English and you're always sending me to my dictionary.

Hey they used that word in the 19th century all the time. I've seen and used it several times.

[kmt_sesh]

23 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I wonder if the mother of all civilizations idea came from the Biblical concept of a prior Antediluvian world?

 

 

This is probably one of the best points brought up so far. You're not even being contumelious in mentioning it.

Back in the 1800s, most educated Westerners (primarily men) had been steeped in Classics and biblical lore. Many of the original historians venturing to Egypt and the Holy Land were deliberately looking for proof of the Bible. They were motivated by it from their youngest years. And as most of us probably already know, to many people in the 1800s the Bible was still very much held as a solid work of history.

After all, isn't Noah something of a "mother culture" story? He and his clan went forth after the flood and repopulated the world.

I hadn't really ever considered it that way, but it makes sense. The "mother culture" idea itself would've appealed to many Judeo-Christians.

[kmt_sesh]

8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Hey they used that word in the 19th century all the time. I've seen and used it several times.

I had no idea you were that old.

[Tatetopa]

30 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

How many loony threads do we have in which some poster is insisting that the Egyptians and the Mayans must be related because they both made pyramids? Many fringe proponents who hold to such things have a very poor understanding of history and willingly cling to amusingly outdated ideas that were popular in the 1800s.

I am finishing up a great book about Stephens and Catherwood and their exploration and documentation of Maya ruins in Yucutan and Central America.  Kmt sesh, you would have a better objective opinion, but this book made them sound  like groundbreakers.  Catherwood's illustrations were said to be masterful.  At the time, prevailing opinion was for Maya cities being constructed by Egyptians, Lost Tribes of Israel, Chinese, Indians, Phoenicians, or anybody BUT Native Americans.   Stephens and Catherwood who had both traveled in Egypt, Greece, and the Middle East help that the ruined cities in Yucutan were nothing in style like any of the Old World civilizations.  They did not conjecture where they had no facts, but strongly believed the Maya cities were the work of Indigenous Americans.

If I can weave this into the thread, the European savants of the 1840's opining that primitive, inferior, aboriginals could not have mastered stone, art, city planning, and writing that was evidenced in Uxmal, Copan, Palenque, and Mayapan. are equivalent to the modern proponents of  one master ancient civilization radiating out into all of the world.

Stephens made an interesting and logical point about pyramids.  When materials of limited structural strength (wood, earth, stone) are employed to build something high, a wide base and a sloping hill-like structural  might be natural forms that the ingenuity of man evolves wherever he finds himself.  Not a quote, my paraphrase.  

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

A reminder, folks: stay on-topic. If your post doesn't contribute to the discussion by either disagreeing or agreeing with it in a productive manner, you do not need to post.

And if you dislike the idea of this thread, that's fine. No one's making you post in it. Post somewhere else.

That's fair. I hope you can be just as impartial and even handed in all threads.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

.

"Pseudo-science," on the other hand, while also not terribly gentle, is an accepted and legitimate term used in both professional and lay studies.

In popular parlance, I see the term pseudo-skepticism as its corollary. Both are not terribly gentle, but they make their subjective point.

[kmt_sesh]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

In popular parlance, I see the term pseudo-skepticism as its corollary. Both are not terribly gentle, but they make their subjective point.

I would agree. There's a place for the term "pseudo-skepticism" too, although I don't see too much of it in this section of UM.

[papageorge1]

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

I would agree. There's a place for the term "pseudo-skepticism" too, although I don't see too much of it in this section of UM.

I see it as dominant in this section because of the culture here. 

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

I had no idea you were that old.

Now now don't be contumelious! I've been reading 19th century for a long time, its a passion it helps a great deal with my current work/hobby.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

Back in the 1800s, most educated Westerners (primarily men) had been steeped in Classics and biblical lore. Many of the original historians venturing to Egypt and the Holy Land were deliberately looking for proof of the Bible. They were motivated by it from their youngest years. And as most of us probably already know, to many people in the 1800s the Bible was still very much held as a solid work of history.

 

Yes, I studied what a middle class English man would have studied in the 1830's; he would have learned Greek and Latin and would have read Homer, Julius Caesar (Commentaries) and many others in the original languages, learned mathematics, religion, rhetoric & literature, Art and perhaps music. At the end of this he would be able to read and write in those languages and also French and perhaps Spanish or German. He would also could do fairly advanced mathematics and geometry, would have read much poetry and become well acquainted with the Bible (depending on which sect if not C of E). He could also of course write very well and knew English Grammar and history. He might know more ancient Greek and Roman History than what had happened in 18th century Europe!

[Hanslune]

19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I see it as dominant in this section because of the culture here. 

Give us an example please

[jaylemurph]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Give us an example please

Can one give examples of hurt fee-fees and/or sads?

--Jaylemurph

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

I am finishing up a great book about Stephens and Catherwood and their exploration and documentation of Maya ruins in Yucutan and Central America.  Kmt sesh, you would have a better objective opinion, but this book made them sound  like groundbreakers.  Catherwood's illustrations were said to be masterful.  At the time, prevailing opinion was for Maya cities being constructed by Egyptians, Lost Tribes of Israel, Chinese, Indians, Phoenicians, or anybody BUT Native Americans.   Stephens and Catherwood who had both traveled in Egypt, Greece, and the Middle East help that the ruined cities in Yucutan were nothing in style like any of the Old World civilizations.  They did not conjecture where they had no facts, but strongly believed the Maya cities were the work of Indigenous Americans.

If I can weave this into the thread, the European savants of the 1840's opining that primitive, inferior, aboriginals could not have mastered stone, art, city planning, and writing that was evidenced in Uxmal, Copan, Palenque, and Mayapan. are equivalent to the modern proponents of  one master ancient civilization radiating out into all of the world.

Stephens made an interesting and logical point about pyramids.  When materials of limited structural strength (wood, earth, stone) are employed to build something high, a wide base and a sloping hill-like structural  might be natural forms that the ingenuity of man evolves wherever he finds himself.  Not a quote, my paraphrase.  

Good old Stephens. Great books I received a copy of his two volume sets on Yucatan and Central America from an ancestor who purchased them when the first came out. That fellow (not Stephens) made a number of interesting remarks in the margins. He was in the Yucatan helping the Mexican Government during the Caste Wars. My ancestor did not believe the Maya Indians who were rebelling could have been the builders of the cities. He seemed to think it was the tribes of Israel or BOM folks.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Give us an example please

Skepticism is an emotionally cold/neutral approach to understanding truth. If you haven't seen the opposite of that here, I can't help you.

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

First off the tone n this thread changed dramatically once I pointed out what Hans is up too and second the reason I came to the conclusion that it's a troll thread is that the title of the thread is near incoherent and the title subject matter is a generalised rant talking about nothing specific other than spreading badwill. Hans was gone for a week or so. Threads have been civil and no posts reported. Along comes Hans and his first post is negative and dismissive of other posters without being specific. 

Draw your own conclusions. 

I would think that you are somewhat mistaken in your perception of the relevance of the thread as well as the tone of the participants. I really didn't notice any change of tone either as it was mostly being discussed by posters with commonality in view. If a religiously reverent bowtie man shows up at a Ford meet it is likely that he would feel out of place. There is little difference in reference to the situation here where there are people that have spent years investigating through the use of diverse credible sources from several scientific fields conversing amongst one and other and having a few less resourced people joining in. The hallmark of a good discussion is one of understanding the material presented and countering with verifiable and credible sources that support ones refutation. In most cases as seen in these forums the unprepared usually tend to lose ground quickly and rather than learn suffer embarassment and thrash frantically to divert away from their lack of preparation

jmccr8

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Skepticism is an emotionally cold/neutral approach to understanding truth. If you haven't seen the opposite of that here, I can't help you.

Well we are talking about science it is neither hot/cold but yes skepticism should be neutral - are you uggesting skepticism should be emotionally charged then?

Are you are saying that some here are pseudo-skeptics but you cannot provide an example of same?

Okay

May I hazard a guess and suggest that you hold that people who are 'Pseudo-Skeptics' are those that don't automatically believe some of your cherished ideas and ask for evidence to support your beliefs?

 

[jmccr8]

36 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I see it as dominant in this section because of the culture here. 

We are all a part of this culture here nobody forces anyone to learn that is a personal choice. I always wondered why a non-smoker would come into a cigar bar and complain that people were smoking cigars, I guess life is funny like that.

jmccr8

[papageorge1]

Just now, Hanslune said:

 

May I hazard a guess and suggest that you hold that people who are 'Pseudo-Skeptics' are those that don't automatically believe some of your cherished ideas and ask for evidence to support your beliefs?

 

Well, you guessed wrong. A true skeptic would have an opinion but come across as emotionally cold/neutral to both sides. They probably would not be interested in flaunting subjective derogatory terms.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

We are all a part of this culture here nobody forces anyone to learn that is a personal choice. I always wondered why a non-smoker would come into a cigar bar and complain that people were smoking cigars, I guess life is funny like that.

jmccr8

I thought the bar I walked into was called 'Unexplained Mysteries'. Funny how some don't like unexplained mysteries here.

[Hanslune]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, you guessed wrong. A true skeptic would have an opinion but come across as emotionally cold/neutral to both sides. They probably would not be interested in flaunting subjective derogatory terms.

So your position is that you know what pseudo-skepticism is but cannot give an example of it. Okay

May I grant you an emotionally cold/neutral response; thank you for your participation.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Hanslune
added 'your'

[Hanslune]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

I thought the bar I walked into was called 'Unexplained Mysteries'. Funny how some don't like unexplained mysteries here.

We love them that is why we discuss them all the time - isn't that why you are here?