10 Most Puzzling Artifacts

[indigobusiness]

The Antikythera Mechanism



A perplexing artifact was recovered by sponge-divers from a shipwreck in 1900 off the coast of Antikythera, a small island that lies northwest of Crete. The divers brought up from the wreck a great many marble and and bronze statues that had apparently been the ship's cargo. Among the findings was a hunk of corroded bronze that contained some kind of mechanism composed of many gears and wheels. Writing on the case indicated that it was made in 80 B.C., and many experts at first thought it was an astrolabe, an astronomer's tool. An x-ray of the mechanism, however, revealed it to be far more complex, containing a sophisticated system of differential gears. Gearing of this complexity was not known to exist until 1575! It is still unknown who constructed this amazing instrument 2,000 years ago or how the technology was lost.

The Coso Artifact



While mineral hunting in the mountains of California near Olancha during the winter of 1961, Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey and Mike Mikesell found a rock, among many others, that they thought was a geode - a good addition for their gem shop. Upon cutting it open, however, Mikesell found an object inside that seemed to be made of white porcelain. In the center was a shaft of shiny metal. Experts estimated that it should have taken about 500,000 years for this fossil-encrusted nodule to form, yet the object inside was obviously of sophisticated human manufacture. Further investigation revealed that the porcelain was surround by a hexagonal casing, and an x-ray revealed a tiny spring at one end. Some who have examined the evidence say it looks very much like a modern-day spark plug. How did it get inside a 500,000-year-old rock?

The Grooved Spheres



Over the last few decades, miners in South Africa have been digging up mysterious metal spheres. Origin unknown, these spheres measure approximately an inch or so in diameter, and some are etched with three parallel grooves running around the equator. Two types of spheres have been found: one is composed of a solid bluish metal with flecks of white; the other is hollowed out and filled with a spongy white substance. The kicker is that the rock in which they where found is Precambrian - and dated to 2.8 billion years old! Who made them and for what purpose is unknown.

The Dropa Stones



In 1938, an archeological expedition led by Dr. Chi Pu Tei into the Baian-Kara-Ula mountains of China made an astonishing discovery in some caves that had apparently been occupied by some ancient culture. Buried in the dust of ages on the cave floor were hundreds of stone disks. Measuring about nine inches in diameter, each had a circle cut into the center and was etched with a spiral groove, making it look for all the world like some ancient phonograph record some 10,000 to 12,000 years old. The spiral groove, it turns out, is actually composed of tiny hieroglyphics that tell the incredible story of spaceships from some distant world that crash-landed in the mountains. The ships were piloted by people who called themselves the Dropa, and the remains of whose descendents, possibly, were found in the cave.


http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:yZtS7ynPNrgJ:www.spydercorner.org/ano.html++%22http://www.spydercorner.org/ano.html%22&hl=en

[autorank]

1. Thanks. This is very interesting stuff.

[indigobusiness]

2. Those grooved spheres

when set on a flat surface and left alone, will slowly start to spin.

They have some in a museum in Johannesburg, that are in a glass case and just slowly turn continuously.

[GAspnes]

3. sounds like perpetual motion

got film?

[indigobusiness]

4. Would seem so.

Nobody knows the what of the spheres, much less the how of their turning. But, you can see them for yourself, and even purchase one (I think). They have found many. Not sure if all of them turn.

Film exists, but I don't have any. Film can be faked, so it wouldn't be convincing. There is reputable documentation, if you dig for it.

[Squeegee]

10. When did these spheres start rotating?

After reading dozens of other articles from various paranormal/ufo/ghost sites (most are exact copies of each other), not one ever mentioned these spheres rotating.

I also found that one of the original sources of information about these spheres was the Weekly World News, hardly a credible publication IMHO.

[indigobusiness]

13. Any paper can print any story.

There are credible sources regarding the spheres. The quality of your research is no reflection on their documentation.

[lazarus]

14. LOL

The documentation you haven't provided?

You seem to think it's up to us to disprove this claim, which you haven't supported in any way. That's not how this works. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Not the other way around.

The lack of documentation is a reflection on the quality of your debating. Where are these 'credible sources'? I can't find them, either.

I found a reference to their spinning on ufo.net. And a ghost/supernatural site. But nothing credible.

[indigobusiness]

18. I'm not out to prove anything other than these claims exist.

Who cares what you believe?

If you want to contact the principles, their names are provided. Including the museum curator who you can quiz about his claim of the turning sphere in his possession. Give him a call, it's not that hard.

The story you ridicule is only mirrored on the site you scoff at, and appears on many others, in numerous languages.

[lazarus]

20. You haven't, actually

even proven these claims exist. Where's the evidence that people even claim the spheres spin? Doesn't appear in the story listed. You brought that particular claim up.

Until you provide evidence that they spin, I will believe that you are lying. Which shouldn't bother you, since you don't care what I believe.

[indigobusiness]

28. You can believe anything you wish

and I couldn't care less.

This is no matter of belief. If you want certainties, go elsewhere. But, I guarantee that some of the things you hold certain aren't. Where that leaves you is even less of a concern for me.

These claims are presented for those that wish to consider the possible, not for something to believe in, or not. The items either are as represented, or thay are not. I look at each two ways -- If they are not, that's the end of it...If they are, there's something to think about.

Nobody discovered anything new with a closed mind. I'm well aware of the need for and requirements of rigorous scrutiny, but I'm not pretentious about it.

[Squeegee]

37. Some other claims you might want consider

The Earth REALLY is flat!

Al Qaeda has The Gay Bomb!

Poll shows Americans feel safer with Martha Stewart in jail.

[Squeegee]

19. What a joke.

You tell us to look for the information ourselves, and when we find something you don't like get get your panties up in a bunch? You're just too funny.

BTW, here's a link to a page containing an excerpt from the book, "Forbidden Archeology", where the author actually references the The Weekly World News in the footer.

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/spheres.html

[princehal]

5. Fun Stuff But...

http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2002-02-12.htm

[Ediacara]

6. Interesting

Do you have an actual x-ray image or flouroscope image of the Antikythera mechanism? What you have posted is clearly an interpretive drawing of it. Possibly even a watercolor.

I know for a fact that the Coso artifact is a 1920s spark plug encased in mud. Check the 'net for skeptics, "coso artifact," and "spark plug collectors."

I am not sure what the grooved spheres represent, but more photos and film would be helpful.

And the dropa stones...... as far as I know, real archaeologists in China do not find them out of the ordinary, so why should we?

[Soloflecks]

7. Yep, we know it all.

No mysteries here. Please go back to shopping now.

[indigobusiness]

8. Well said.

heheh...

[lazarus]

9. So, asking for more information

is claiming that "we know it all"?

[Squeegee]

11. You're too logical and rational

... and you're scaring off the gullible.

[indigobusiness]

12. It's not about gullibilty...

it's about attitude.

[lazarus]

15. No

It's about facts. And the lack thereof. Evidence, and the lack thereof.

[indigobusiness]

17. No, it's about keeping your head in the sand

in the face of facts and evidence.

[lazarus]

21. What facts?

What evidence? You haven't actually provided any. You made a claim that these spheres spin, but haven't backed that up at all.

All we've got is some claims. If you think claims are facts and evidence, no wonder you spend so much time arguing and thinking you're winning.

[indigobusiness]

27. I don't defend others claims.

You sit in judgment in your wish to feel superior, do your own due diligence if you wish to challenge these claims. I merely pointed out these claims exist, I haven't tried to win anything. There is no contest, except in your petty and egotistical mind.

[Squeegee]

38. These really aren't valid claims

... they are more akin to unsubstantiated rumors and/or urban legend. This is why validated and verifiable "evidence" is required. If research into these "artifacts" were published in esteemed journals (heck even Scientific American Magazine) it would be far more convincing than these contrivances copied from unreliable sources (e.g. from "Forbidden Archeology" which references Weekly World News) and posted verbatim on various ufo/paranormal/ghost pseudo-science web sites.

[Ediacara]

31. Look, I know one of those is a fraud

The Coso Artifact, I am 100% sure is a sparkplug encased in mud. Like, I said, surf the 'net, look for skeptics, "coso artifact," and "sparkplug collectors."

I was asking for more information concerning the others I brought up.

[Tims]

52. Gamma Ray Image

This is the real image of the Antikythera Mechanism, not the artist's rendition in the post.

This is the actual artifact.

In 1959 an attempt to reconstruct the original mechanism resulted in the following:



and appears that the mechanism was a component of a device to calculate the motion of stars and planets. You can find a facsimile of a 1959 Scientific American article regarding this here: http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/kythera/kythera3.htm

Therefore we indeed know what this was and though there is some "mystery" about it, it is mostly just forcing "historians to reevaluate the technological sophistication of the Greek culture of the first century B.C."(1) There is little doubt that the Greeks made this and were capable of other things of equal complexity.

We must understand that with the invading barbarian hordes which would bring down Rome and the later Christians penchant for destroying anything related to "pagan" culture, it is amazing we know as much as we do about the ancients. To find out they were more sophisticated than we though is more a revelation than a mystery.

(1)http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/antikythera.html

[indigobusiness]

16. NASA comment on the grooved spheres...Yonuguni, etc.

3-Billion Year Old Manufactured Spheroids?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


At least 200 have been found, and extracted out of deep rock at the Wonderstone Silver Mine in South Africa, averaging 1-4 inches in dia. and composed of a nickel-steel alloy that doesn't occur naturally. Some have a thin shell about a quarter inch thick, when broken open are filled with a strange spongy material that disintegrates into dust upon contact with air.

A complete mystery according to Roelf Marx curator of the South African Klerksdorp Museum, as the one he has on exibit rotates on its own, ,locked in a display case, free of outside vibrations. The manufactured metallic spheroids have been mined out of a layer of pyrophyllite rock and geologically and by the various radio-isotope.

Dating techniques are shown as being 2.8 - 3 billion years old, long before man.

Somebody or Something obviously has been around for a long time, before primivive humans. They also baffled NASA, according to info from the Museum.

Mystery Spheres Baffle NASA

Man and rock. Stones, which are billions of years old and rotate on their axes, captured the attention of Mr. John Hund of Pietersburg fifteen years ago. Review previously published reports about Hund's journey to the Gestoptesfontein mine near Ottosdal in the Northern Province where he found a stone just like the one he read about and saw in the Klerksdorp museum.

http://www.ufoarea.com/aas_ancient_spheroids.html



http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=64
http://facs.doing.it/?M=74|42|40|0 -more sphere pics
more:

Thus we have the case of the metal spheres found by miners in the Western Transvaal, South Africa. Over the past few decades miners in the area have come across metal spheres, often grooved, in layers of sedimentation estimated at 2.8 billion years old. According to Roelf Marx, curator of the Klerksdorp museum where they are kept: “The spheres are a complete mystery. . .They’re nothing like I have ever seen before.” Moreover the spheres are so hard that they cannot be scratched, even with a hard metal point. In 1979 several were closely examined by J.R. McIver, professor of geology at the University of Witwatersrand in Jo’burg and Andries Bischoff, geology professor at Potschefstroom University. What they found only deepened the mystery; averaging 1 to 4 inches in diameter the spheres are usually coloured steel blue with tiny flecks of white fibers embedded in them. They were found to be made of a nickel-steel alloy which does not occur naturally, and is of such a composition that excludes any meteoric origin. Quite simply they do not fit into any conventional prehistoric time-scale.


Some other anomalies are quite literally monumental however, such as the ziggurat found off the coast of Okinawi, Japan. Over 600 feet wide and 90 feet high, the edifice was initially thought to be a natural formation on its discovery, nearly 10 years ago. However closer inspection prompted a reassessment. Thus according to Professor Kimura, a marine geologist at the University of Okinawa: “This could only have been done by a people with a high degree of technology . . .There would have been some sort of machinery involved to create such a huge structure.”

[lazarus]

22. Ah, here's the elusive "evidence"

First link claims the spheres baffle NASA. Their evidence? "They also baffled NASA, according to info from the Museum." Second hand info, wouldn't even be admissable in court.

As for the 'curator of the Klerksdorp Museum', that sounds impressive. Except that the museum looks to be quite small. For instance, the museum also offers Peach Mampoer & Soet Blits liqueurs."

And, quite interestingly, the several pages listed here don't even bother mentioning these mystical spheres. Imagine that.

I did see a lot of references to how the spheres have been stolen, nobody is allowed to do research on them, etc.

Not really persuasive to me, but believe what you want.

[Dookus]

24. Also note

that the article (from a UFO website) doesn't actually contain a quote from NASA. It quotes an unidentified "NASA scientist". There's nothing approaching a statement from NASA.

[indigobusiness]

25. NASA is represented by the people it employs

It isn't the gold standard of Science it used to be, now that it is a quasi-military org. It can't really be trusted anyway.

I've made no claims, have none to defend, and nothing to prove.

---

"What safeguards could we implement to prevent people from injuring themselves with thought?"

[Dookus]

29. then who is the scientist?

What's his name? Can we check to see that he really works for NASA? Can we tell in what capacity he examined the spheres? When he did so? Did he do so for NASA?

And no, NASA is NOT represented by every person who's ever worked for it. Have you ever worked for any company or organization? You do NOT represent them in everything you say.

[indigobusiness]

30. I just drew attention to the claim.

I can't validate them, anymore than you can invalidate them, offhandedly.

[Dookus]

33. Yes, you did

and I'm saying the claim is meaningless.

Somehow you think *I* should invalidate the claim, even though I have no possible way to do so? Interesting approach to logic.

[indigobusiness]

34. I accept your expertise of meaninglessness

but it gives no weight to your codswallop.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squeegee]

40. I accept your expertise of evasiveness

But empty rebuttals are not helping you.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squeegee]

44. I claim that you need help, and there is plenty of evidence.

Care to prove me wrong?

[indigobusiness]

45. No

that's what I've been trying to tell you.

[lazarus]

41. You are lying

"I've made no claims, have none to defend, and nothing to prove."

And yet, in this same thread:

---

indigobusiness (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-07-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Those grooved spheres

Edited on Fri Jan-07-05 08:02 PM by indigobusiness
when set on a flat surface and left alone, will slowly start to spin.

They have some in a museum in Johannesburg, that are in a glass case and just slowly turn continuously.

---

I'm sure you won't be alerting on this, since you don't care what I believe, right?

[Squeegee]

23. The italian link

... is simply a translation of from http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/spheres.html. Note, the reference in the footer to The Weekly World News, the same publication that gave us such factual stories as Boneless Baby Miracle Tot Lives in Bucket.

[indigobusiness]

26. I posted it for the pictures.

Did you not enjoy them?

[Squeegee]

36. Yes I did

But web pages that reference The Weekly World News as a source of information is hardly what I would call convincing evidence.

Since pictures of spheres with grooves around their equator are so popular in this thread, here's another sphere that really does rotate by itself and has an unusual band around its midsection:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=526

[progressoid]

48. Boneless Baby!! That's better than the Gay Bomb!! nt

[Ediacara]

32. So where is NASA's comment?

There's only one sentence that mentions NASA, and everything is taken from non-NASA websites. So, ya, did you forget to post NASA's comment?

[Tims]

54. I notice no references to actual NASA sites

Claims of NASA involvement are a common in hoaxes (the "lost day" urban myth comes to mind).

Also, a lot of non-scientific people work for NASA and often the phrase "a NASA employee claims" gets shortened to "NASA claims".

Also your "ziggurat" is simply naturally fractured basaltic deposits which only through considerable imagination can one visualize buildings. The site is devoid of artifacts, something that would be totally unique for a site with such massive ancient buildings. The structure shows no symmetry and little regularity, something also that would be unlike any other ancient structure. Sections which are said to be stairs are so irregular that it would be difficult to ascend them. The thing is we are not used to seeing things with right angles in nature except at a small scale (crystals and snow flakes). When we see large angular objects, we immediately think "man made".

[pmbryant]

35. Article on the Coso (sparkplug) artifact

Thanks to DinoBoy's posts above, I was inspired to find out more about this "Coso artifact". Below is an interesting, and thorough, article about it.

Also, there appears to be some kind of link between the source material for this thread and "creation science". But I don't know much about that yet.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/coso.html

by Pierre Stromberg and Paul Heinrich

Creationists have often been criticized for failing to present original research and evidence that would overthrow our contemporary view of human origins in favor of another. However, this is not an entirely fair accusation. The creation "science" field known as OOPARTS, or "Out Of Place ARTifactS" is a lively area of study with numerous examples. This paper will examine the most popular and least understood specimen, the Coso Artifact.

...

Very little is known about the initial physical inspections of the artifact. According to discoverer Virginia Maxey, a geologist she spoke with who examined the fossil shells encrusting the specimen said the nodule had taken at least 500,000 years to attain its present form. However, the identity of the first geologist is still a mystery, and his findings were never officially published.

Another investigation was conducted by creationist Ron Calais. Calais is the only other individual known to have physically inspected the artifact, and was allowed to take photographs of the nodule in both X ray and natural light. Calais's X rays brought interest in the artifact to a new level. The X ray of the upper end of the object seemed to reveal some sort of tiny spring or helix. INFO Journal Publisher Ronald J. Willis speculated that it could actually be "the remains of a corroded piece of metal with threads." The other half of the artifact revealed a sheath of metal, presumably copper, covering the porcelain cylinder.

...

When it comes to the geologic evidence, the most stunning claim is that the artifact was discovered in a geode. As Donald Chittick has noted, formation of a geode requires significant amounts of time. But what is often overlooked is that the Coso Artifact possesses no characteristics that would classify it as a geode. It is true that the original discoverers were looking for geodes on the day the artifact was found. But this alone is insufficient evidence that the artifact is a geode.

Geodes consists of a thin outer shell, composed of dense chalcedonic silica, and are filled with a layer of quartz crystals. The Coso Artifact does not possess either feature. Discoverer Virginia Maxey referred to the material covering the artifact as "hardened clay" and noted that it had picked up a miscellaneous collection of pebbles, including a "nail and washer."

...

Conclusion

The Coso Artifact is a remarkable example of how creation "science" fails when the assumptions of its theory are implemented in a real life archaeological situation. Young-earth creationists commonly assume that almost all sedimentary layers were depositedduring the Great Flood. Therefore, any items closely associated with such strata must date back to the time of Noah.

Perhaps the most surprising revelation is the stunningly poor research Dr. Chittick conducted regarding the artifact. Several times he referenced creationist articles that should have cast the original claims in extreme doubt. But somehow, he continued to be fascinated by the artifact. Anti-creationists familiar with Dr. Chittick will remember a previous incident with Dr. Chittick. When confronted about his fallacious statements by Jim Lippard regarding Lucy's knee joint in the mid 1990s, he ignored these warnings and continued to mislead his audiences until confronted in person by Pierre Stromberg at the conclusion of a lecture in Seattle. It is possible that Dr. Chittick could be still promoting the Coso Artifact both in lectures and in his book without acknowledging any of his private conversations with the authors of this article.

The Coso Artifact was indeed a remarkable device. It was a 1920s-era Champion spark plug that likely powered a Ford Model T or Model A engine, modified to possibly serve mining operations in the Coso mountain range of California. To suggest that it was a device belonging to an advanced ancient civilization of the past could be interpreted as true, but is an exaggeration of several thousand years.

[Ediacara]

46. Blow by blow....

In the order presented on the website you link:

Grooved Spheres

From a website with an interview of Forbidden Archaeology's author, Michael Cremo, he says:

These are round metallic objects that have been over the past couple of decades by miners in South Africa. The objects come from a mine near a place called Ottosdalin, in the West Transvaal region. The objects are one or two inches in diameter. The ones we had analyzed by metallurgists turned out to be made of an iron ore called hematite. The most interesting feature of the objects is the parallel grooves that go around the center of each one. Some have four grooves, some three, some two, some only one. The metallurgists who examined them said they were not produced naturally. Therefore, the objects must have been manufactured by someone with humanlike intelligence. Yet they are found solidly embedded in mineral deposits over 2 billion years old.

I've found these. Lots of them. Hematite nodules are not unusual, or rare, or man-made. Had Cremo actually presented them to a geologists, rather than a metallurgist, he would know that. Since there is little (or no) information on the geological setting the grooved stones were discovered, nor is it certain they were discovered in rocks of Precambrian age, nor is it certain that they can even be studied by outside researchers, no further comment can be made.

In any case, as a simple thought exercise, I'd suggest that you try to imagine a hematite sphere being preserved intact during metamorphism. You can't because it wouldn't happen.

I am offering this hypothesis: The spheres are nodules of hematite, formed during retrograde metamorphism of southern Africa during the breakup of Rodinia. The grooves could be stress markers indicating a regional stress field, but since there is no data concerning in situ stones, this is unknowable.

Dropa Stones

The stones are real artifacts. The story surrounding them is a hoax. Actually, it's a well documented hoax. The story originated in 1978 as a satire of Von Daniken, a popularizer of ancient alien gods who is a well known liar, even in paranormal circles. From a website concerning them:

Perhaps the biggest of these 'modern myths' concerns an ancient crashed saucer in Tibet, whose survivors are the ancestors of the Dzopa clan. Real evidence for this claim is non-existent and the story does not exist before the publication, in 1978, of 'Sungods in Exile', the account by Oxford historian Karyl Robin-Evans of his stay among the Dzopa in 1947, edited by David Agamon. Alas for the credulous, the very real author David A Gamon confessed in this very magazine in 1992 (FT62: 63) that Robin-Evans and the Dzopa were all created by him as a satire on the 'god was a space-alien' industry.

Ica Stones

The "discoverer" of the stones has confessed to carving them himself. Case closed. For a more detailed story, click here.

Antikythera Mechanism

Appears to either be an astrolabe or astrological computer based on epicycles in an Earth-centered universe. Additionally, the writings of historians of the time talk of astrological computers that do what the Antikythera Mechanism seems to do. It's not as out of place historically as your website wants people to believe.

Baghdad Battery

Well..... it's a battery, from an advanced civilization who's technology was lost. That's nothing new. Not that people were powering CD players with it or lighting light bulbs.... Possible uses include electroplating, electric shock pain treatment (quackery to get rid of pain involving electric eels!), or heating.

Coso Artifact

This is a Champion Brand spark plug from the 1920s encased in mud. It has been thoroughly debunked.

Ancient Model Aircraft

The only thing I could find on the 'net concerning "Ancient Model Aircraft" is a bunch of websites reposting the 10 most puzzling artifacts story. I did however look for Saqqura aircraft and found this drawing:



and photo:



This thing probably can't fly. Simply looking at the wings will tell you that. It also looks like a bird to me. One should ask the question though, why are there so many "models" of airplanes being found, but no actual airplanes? The site also has this gold artifact from the Americas which was pictured on the site you linked:



But what's it look like from the side?



OMG, it's so clearly an anthropomorphosed human figure I can't believe that anyone would even posit that it's an airplne!

Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica

Wow, giant granite balls. I don't know why these are so mysterious, other than the who and the why. There's no unusual technological magic involved, nor any out of order dating.

Impossible Fossils

There is not actually any information on the site you linked to, Such as formation; Hell, there's not even a listing of the country for most of them! I do know this however: creationists will stoop to any level of dishonesty to peddle their lies. The cases of creationists carving "human" footprints are well documented. Additionally, creationists have recently been peddling the arm and hand of a mososaur (a marine lizard) as that of a human. They claim that the hand was found in the Late Cretaceous Pierre Shale of Alberta (the truth), but lie when they say it comes from a human.

Out-of-Place Metal Objects

Again, there are no real specifics in this heading, so I can't really comment on it. I do know however that there are at least two common minerals with a metalic lustre that have a cubic habit: galena and pyrite.

[trotsky]

47. Great work, DinoBoy!

Just think how much farther we'd be ahead if scientists didn't have to waste time debunking all this crap.

[progressoid]

49. Some of you skeptics would understand this better if you had the

proper head gear...

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/

[semillama]

50. amazing it took this long for the headgear to be mentioned

seems like you can't go anywhere that discusses science and/or archaeology without someone bringing up the "10 Mysterious Artifacts." I blame the school system and shoddy science teaching.

Actually, my science teachers were good. I blame the dumbasses who didn't pay attention.

All of the above examples come from people trying to interpret something without the background education to actually interpret it. The best example in my book is the "sunken city" off japan, which to my archaeologist eyes looks like a geological formation, probably basalt.

"But straight lines don't occur in nature!" Yes they do, go look at a snow flake under a microscope some time.

geez.

[Tims]

55. Large basaltic formations

Check out the "Giant's Causeway" in Ireland or the "Devil's Tower" in Wyoming or the Nan Midol Ruins built with natural basalt "logs" on the Micronesian island of Ponape. Nature does indeed produce right angles.

[indigobusiness]

51. Scientific Skepticism

There is no more honourable word in the scientific lexicon that that of 'skeptic' -- one who sincerely seeks after truth and who has the courage to rebut scientific myths and false beliefs with empirical data and sound logic.

'Skeptic' is a word that can be found in frequent use on the Internet, especially by individuals who think of themselves as scientific rationalists and by organisations such as CSICOP and COPUS whose stated mission is to spread real scientific knowledge and to defeat superstition and ignorance.

But in recent decades, 'skeptic' has come to mean something else. It has come to mean the adoption of an attitude of scorn and derision towards any kind of anomalous data that contradicts current scientific beliefs, and the adoption of an air of condescension and superiority towards those who venture to investigate or write about anomalous phenomena.

snip

Many professional scientists will read the examples given on this site and respond by saying that in every generation it is up to the discoverer of the new and the unexpected to make his or her case by experiment and argument. No-one has an automatic right to be accepted, or even listened to and anyone who enters the demanding profession of science must be willing to submit to the most rigorous -- even harsh -- scrutiny.

snip

In these circumstances, and in many others described on this site, it is not the Principle of Tenacity that is being invoked, it is blind, unreasoning prejudice masquerading as scientific rationalism.

And the 'skeptics' who censor and ridicule in the name of science, whether they know it or not, are the agents not of knowledge but of pseudoscience.

Science does not need vigilantes to guard its gates. Science has been successful because good science drives out bad and because an ounce of experiment is worth any amount of scientific authority.


http://www.alternativescience.com/skepticism.htm

[indigobusiness]

53. Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers

by Mac Tonnies


Students of ufology and extraterrestrial archaeology are constantly confronted with three terms that quietly challenge assumptions of reality: “skeptic,” “debunker” and “believer.” In the storm of claims, hypotheses and accusations that define esoteric research, these labels are routinely misused. I’d like to take this opportunity to look a bit closer at these emotionally charged words in order to see what they really mean, and how they sculpt the epistemological landscape. (I suspect that most readers versed in “forbidden science” secretly know all of this already, but the public arena incessantly distorts definitions to suit its own politics; consequently, one rarely sees “skeptic,” “debunker” or “believer” used in proper context.)

1.) Skeptics

Skeptics are thinkers. Skeptics evaluate evidence, realizing that there is no absolute plane of reference on which to cling. Skeptics neither debunk nor believe--unless they are able to establish that a given phenomenon deserves to be debunked. “Belief” is not a luxury the true skeptic can afford; the mechanics of skeptical thought are rooted in probability and open-mindedness. Being a skeptic requires courage and intellectual flexibility. What looks like a neat idea may turn out to be unsubstantiated nonsense; conversely, it might be the real thing.

2.) Debunkers

Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described “skeptics.” There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the “pro” side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk. Valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants or alters it.
snip
As researcher Daniel Drasin aptly notes in “Zen and the Art of Debunkery,” “extraordinary” is an essentially emotional word, not any sort of qualitative objective standard. This allows the would-be debunker to define “extraordinary” at her whim, establishing a forever out-of-reach “evidential horizon” that no amount of evidence can hope to surpass.

“Skepticism” is not merely the focus of semantic confusion. Its implications are exceedingly political. Cults, governments, advertisers, religions, schools, and the news media have an abiding interest in infecting you with their beliefs. If you're not vigilantly skeptical, it’s all too easy to succumb. The moment you do, you trap yourself in a given “reality tunnel” (to borrow a term from skeptic extraordinaire Robert Anton Wilson).

The Earth of the early 21st century is a deceiving, perilous place, and we may ultimately pay for the luxury of our zealously guarded tunnel realities with our own extinction. Wrench your mind out of its routines. Eviscerate your most cherished notions, leaving “belief” severed and twitching on the dissection tray where it belongs. And the invisible fog begins to part; the idiot chatter of our collective human television channel (all ads, all day) fades to a whisper somewhere in the distance.

http://www.mactonnies.com/skeptic.html

[Desertrose]

56. Good points indigo...interesting that if the "skeptics" don't agree...

they choose to ridicule.

Sure sounds like familiar tactics for those who want to stop new ideas - or ideas different than those "accepted" by the "mainstream".....

I'd like to know why that is...what are they afraid may come out....are they unable to deal with things that don't fit neatly into proscribed theories....I just wonder sometimes.......

(oh yeah,....I'm sure I will be told how if I open my mind too much my brain will fall out.....not to worry guys...discernment and the ability to think critically on my own will keep my brains intact but also able to allow new and incredible possibilities to enter.)

[Dookus]

58. Why does every one of these discussions

devolve to attacking the character of the skeptics?

Do you have anything to add to the substance of the discussion - the "mysterious" artifacts?

[trotsky]

63. Same logic Rush Limbaugh uses.

Because he gets "a rise" out of liberals, he figures he must be telling the truth.

Likewise, the purveyors of astrology, faith healing, "mysterious relics" of history, homeopathy, and endless other forms of nonsense believe themselves justified when us mean old closed-minded skeptics knock them down.

Below, Mr. Indigo even would like us to compare his poor self to Albert Einstein - because Einstein was ridiculed by some scientists, you see! :eyes:

[indigobusiness]

66. Your logic is questionable.

Below, Mr. Indigo even would like us to compare his poor self to Albert Einstein - because Einstein was ridiculed by some scientists, you see!

You arrived at this how? Logically?

I've made no claims, or asked to be compared to anyone. Your zealotry knows no bounds, but you displayed the limits of your logic in your assertion re Quantum theory when you claimed

"waves are waves"

regarding Quantum and Newtonian realms.

Time to put you back on ignore. What a colossal waste of time.

[trotsky]

67. Ha ha ha

You're always quick to say "I've made no claims", but in post #41 lazarus proved you LIED.

[Desertrose]

73. uhm...I'd say you're the one using Limbaugh tactics here LOL

You appear to be ridiculing those who don't see things from your point of view or hold a different verson of the world.

Interesting how your logic allows you to twist things in such a manner...is this logical scientific type of thinking ?

.....but you do state you are a "mean old closed-minded skeptic" (your choice of words , not mine) :eyes:

[trotsky]

76. So you're saying that if someone posts an article

that uses the Weekly World News as a source, we should take it seriously?

No, pseudo-science and outright fiction DESERVE to be mocked. Maybe fewer people would be hoodwinked by junk science that way.

[indigobusiness]

59. Skepticism is a given. It goes without saying

But, rushing to judgment is another thing entirely. As is cherry-picking the facts and ignoring or ridiculing the comments of university professors, scholars, assorted professionals or whatever.

Making dismissive comments, such as those leveled at the grooved spheres being identical to hematite nodules (or whatever), when their metallic and crafted nature is clearly discussed by men who should know, serves nothing but some sort of twisted ego.

To wit:
I've found these. Lots of them. Hematite nodules are not unusual, or rare, or man-made. Had Cremo actually presented them to a geologists, rather than a metallurgist, he would know that. Since there is little (or no) information on the geological setting the grooved stones were discovered, nor is it certain they were discovered in rocks of Precambrian age, nor is it certain that they can even be studied by outside researchers, no further comment can be made

I guess he doesn't wish to consider this:

According to Roelf Marx, curator of the Klerksdorp museum where they are kept: “The spheres are a complete mystery. . .They’re nothing like I have ever seen before.” Moreover the spheres are so hard that they cannot be scratched, even with a hard metal point. In 1979 several were closely examined by J.R. McIver, professor of geology at the University of Witwatersrand in Jo’burg and Andries Bischoff, geology professor at Potschefstroom University. What they found only deepened the mystery; averaging 1 to 4 inches in diameter the spheres are usually coloured steel blue with tiny flecks of white fibers embedded in them. They were found to be made of a nickel-steel alloy which does not occur naturally, and is of such a composition that excludes any meteoric origin. Quite simply they do not fit into any conventional prehistoric time-scale.


Clearly NOT hematite nodules.

Whatever the truth about these artifacts is, it's fine with me, but they are interesting, collectively, and fun to consider in a healthily skeptical way...considering the possible, and allowing the false to fall away in the open-minded search for the whole truth.

---

I try to "believe" in nothing and hold everything in a state of suspension. I consider myself an open-minded skeptic and try not to mire myself down in specific models of reality. In its own way, the very fact that reality exists at all (assuming, of course, it does) is profoundly strange. So who's to say what's impossible or ridiculous? Intelligence on this planet is an extremely new phenomenon when viewed from a planetary perspective. True skepticism is even more recent. While science provides us with the capability to understand reality (or at least some of it), it doesn't mean we know it all. I'm interested in dissolving the arbitrary distinction mainstream science and academe have set up to distance themselves from esoteric, "forbidden" subjects. -Mac Tonnies

[trotsky]

64. Hear you go, dear indigo.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

Fortunately in Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, some additional information is given. First, it states:

Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator. The spheres are of two types--"one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center" (Jimison 1982).

It is important to note at this time, that (Jimison 1982) is:

Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World News, July 27.

Yes, that's THE Weekly World News. The rag several steps below the Enquirer in respectability. Oh, let's go on:

There is no chain-of-evidence that clearly proves that this sphere with the three grooves had them when found in place. If artificial, the grooves could have been carved innocently just as folkart and later mistakenly thought to have been present when it was found. Since the spheres are metamorphic nodules from the pyrophyllite, then they could not have been carved before the sediment was buried and metamorphosed, because the nodule would not have existed at the time that the sediments were deposited. Thus, If these grooves are artificial, than they were created after the nodule was extracted from the pyrophyllite and they are considerably younger than the age assigned to them.

We have no direct evidence that the spheres were removed from the ground in their current state! We're just supposed to take someone's word for it, apparently. That might be good enough for you - if so, are you in the market for some swampland in Florida?

And finally:

However, there is a complete lack of any evidence that either the nodules/spheres are artificial (i.e., manufactured by an intelligent species 2.8 billion years ago - trotsky) or that the grooves were cut prior to burial. As far as can be determined at this time, the spheres consist of pyrite nodules of metamorphic origin and goethite nodules formed by the weathering of the pyrite. Since the nodules are metamorphic in origin and, thus, formed by metamorphism while the enclosing strata were buried under kilometers of rock, the grooves, if artificial, had to have been cut after they had collected from the pyrophyllite during quarrying operations. As a result, the grooves are far less than 2.8 billions old. The nodules are clearly of natural origin and less than 2.8 billion years old.

By the way, did you know they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary?

[indigobusiness]

65. "Hear" I go where? That is convincing?

If you are going to call me "dear", you'd better buy me a drink first.

There is so much assumption and bad scholarship in that I'm not sure where to start. Perhaps the end:

There are natural processes that can account for single, possibly multiple, grooves. However, until actual specimens can be acquired for study, it is rather pointless to speculate on such a matter.

Where in nature is there a metal object remotely resembling this?



The study of these nodules is ongoing. At this time, I am trying to obtain via surface (snail) mail actual specimens of these and copies of private reports containing data about them. This unfortunately, will likely take some time, possibly months.

Why is the study ongoing if the mystery has been resolved?

Why weren't direct questions posed to the geologists claims about the nickle alloy compostion?

Why does it claim the spheres were found in gold mines?

At least 200 have been found, and extracted out of deep rock at the Wonderstone Silver Mine in South Africa, averaging 1-4 inches in dia. and composed of a nickel-steel alloy that doesn't occur naturally. Some have a thin shell about a quarter inch thick, when broken open are filled with a strange spongy material that disintegrates into dust upon contact with air.


There are so many ifs and maybes in this nonsensical declamation I'll leave you to find them or believe them if you choose.

[trotsky]

68. Oh, sweet indigo.

You attack others for their so-called misuse of logic, and then you give us something like this. *sigh*

You conveniently ignored one half of what you quoted:

However, until actual specimens can be acquired for study, it is rather pointless to speculate on such a matter.

Only a few scientists, as reported by the respected Weekly World News :eyes: have been allowed to "inspect" the stones. The talk.origins page merely says that without multiple scientists being allowed to study the stones in detail, we just can't rule out natural processes... or... FRAUD.

Seriously, as far as what you've been able to assemble for documentation this has zero - ZILCH - credibility. Give it up already before you embarrass yourself even more.

[indigobusiness]

69. You continue to show your game playing nature.

Like in your private message to me after I said I was putting you back on ignore. You said something like "woohooo I win."

To which I said "Only losers worry about winning."

This illustrates the difference between us, I'm not interested in winning petty points, or playing games. Your distortions and motives are clear, and a good example of what I said earlier about attitude. And what Mac Tonnie said about the worst sort of debunkers. It's safe to conclude you have nothing to learn from, so I will now do what I said I would. Farewell.
--
re: "You conveniently ignored one half of what you quoted":

However, until actual specimens can be acquired for study, it is rather pointless to speculate on such a matter.

His speculations were already proven lacking. Who would be foolish enough to be interested in his future speculations? If I could also put him on ignore I would.

[trotsky]

70. That's rich.

Just ignore anything you don't agree with.

And then make sure to chide all of us "skeptics" by claiming that we ignore anything we don't agree with. :eyes:

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

72. Well, since you're still responding to me...

:) :) :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. It doesn't claim the sphere were found in gold mines

It says that the NBC program The Mysterious Origins of Man says they were found in Klerksdorp - and since many of the mines in that area are gold mines, it has led some to think they were found in gold mines.

However, the musuem curator never claimed they were found in a silver mine, either. He said they were found in a pyrophyllite (also known as 'wonderstone') mine near Ottosdal.

[Ediacara]

96. Pyrophyllite eh?

Sounds more and more like retrograde metamorphism to me. And as an aside.... the Mysterious Origins of Man is, IMHO, less reliable as a source than the Weekly World News....

[Ediacara]

75. So....

One "expert" claims they're an iron-nickel alloy (which does occur in nature...), and another says they're hematite. All of them are under lock and key in a fake museum on the other side of the world. Additionally, there is no information concerning in situ specimens, but as I stated before, they are most likely retrometamorphic nodules, because NOTHING can survive metamorphism intact.

[lazarus]

74. ridicule?

Just because we don't agree?

No, we ridicule things that deserve to be ridiculed.

Allow me to clue you in to something that you obviously are completely unaware of:

Most, if not all, skeptics would LOVE to find something truly mysterious or "supernatural". Telepathy works? Great, we've got a whole new area of scientific research to jump into!

Notice that the accepted date for the first humans in North America keeps moving back, and back, and back, as evidence piles up. No, archeologists don't just accept the first evidence that comes along. But as it builds, accepted facts and theories are modified to fit the new evidence.

That's called the scientific process. It's also a clear demonstration of how scientists for the most part are very open-minded.

We're not afraid that something might come out. And scientists don't really give a shit if things don't "fit neatly into proscribed theories", whatever that means.

Theories are shifted and adapted all the time. You see, a theory is simply a framework that is used to explain facts. If the facts change, the theory must change.

If you're going to attack scientists and skeptics, it would help if you knew some of these very basic elements.

If you want to accuse scientists and skeptics - who pride themselves on being seekers of truth - of wanting to stop new ideas and being afraid of them, you'll need something more than being upset because we've debunked some crap. Maybe like offering supporting evidence.

In this thread, none has been provided except vague second hand accounts and writings from the Weekly World News.

But why not tell me what new ideas scientists and skeptics are afraid of, and why we would be afraid of them? I'm keen to know, since I'm a skeptic, and I'm not afraid of new ideas, or new facts, or anything new. I just want some evidence, something people who don't like skeptics seem to have a hard time digging up.

[indigobusiness]

78. Facts are fine and welcomed.

The nature of the debate is what stinks.

Read the two essays on skepticism, they sum my attitude exactly.

[lazarus]

81. The nature of the debate

is that you're debating dishonestly.

For instance:

"(Skepticism) has come to mean the adoption of an attitude of scorn and derision towards any kind of anomalous data that contradicts current scientific beliefs, and the adoption of an air of condescension and superiority towards those who venture to investigate or write about anomalous phenomena."

[Ediacara]

98. So why do you dislike the facts?

I posted a pretty long item concerning each of these ten artifacts. I know you've read it because you commented on it, but just in case, here it is again.

I gave you factual information concerning two of these items indicating outright fraud, factual information concerning one of them indicating that it is a mistake in identification, my opinion that three of the items are interesting but not out of place, my opinion that one item is heavily skewed by the authors' interpretation, my opnion based heavily in fact the natural origin of one of the items, and finally, gave you my opinion that the last two items don't have enough information to form an opinion.

The only item that is actually puzzling are the grooved spheres, but they situation is so screwed up concerning citations in the WWN, a fake museum, specimens under lock and key, a complete lack of site information, and disputes concerning composition of the specimens between so-called "experts."

[Squeegee]

99. About the Grooved Spheres

The original source...

Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator. The spheres are of two types--"one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center" -- Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World News, July 27.

[Ediacara]

100. Is that the first publication concerning the grooved spheres?

Or did the WWN reprint something that had been published previously?

If the WWN is the original publication, then nevermind about all I've said. They're a fraud, case closed.

[Squeegee]

101. The quote I posted

which is cited in "Forbidden Archeology" and copied verbatim to all those web sites originated from the WWN.

[lazarus]

103. More from the WWN

The fig leaves are what does it for me.

(Had a link to a bigger picture in there, but my skillz with HTML are apparently sucky.)

[Bill McBlueState]

79. scientists love new ideas that are right

And scientists don't really give a shit if things don't "fit neatly into proscribed theories", whatever that means.

Right on. If a finding doesn't fit into accepted theory, it means publication and fame for the discoverer. The great scientists in history are the ones who overturned previous ideas. But if your ideas are unsubstantiated crap, you get mocked, and you don't get research grants. That's why real scientists are careful about the claims they make.

[indigobusiness]

84. There are many examples of "great scientists"

speaking off the record, commenting on their interest in things that don't fit nicely into contemporary paradigms, while reluctant to officially comment due to institutional pressures.

Like Schopenhauer said:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

[pmbryant]

86. Truth and ridicule

Nice quote, but even assuming that it is universally true, it doesn't mean that everything that is ridiculed is truth.

--Peter

[indigobusiness]

87. Of course not.

That's not the point.

[lazarus]

91. Then what is your point?

Or do you even have one?

[Squeegee]

95. Stop new ideas?

This has nothing to do with stopping new ideas, this has to do with exposing deception. Most of the "artifacts" posted in the original article are of dubious nature, presented with very specious interpretations from disreputable sources, or are simply a joke. This is the science forum, after all. What do you expect, blind acceptance? Sheesh.

Maybe we should have this article moved to a different forum where it would be accepted on faith without the need for all that messy proof and evidence stuff.

[Tims]

57. Nice words, but..

It is true that "valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants it", unfortunately we are usually dealing with evidence that is neither valid nor substantiated, yet we are the ones being ask to prove the alternate view is true rather than the claimant revealing his evidence where it can be observed and tested. The debunker rarely is up against valid, substantiated evidence, but up against bad science, hearsay, and outright fraud and this is usually what is being attacked. The claimant tries to move the argument to his conclusions rather than to the evidence itself and and the nature of his so called research. This is just smoke and mirrors to avoid having to defend the undefendable.

[indigobusiness]

60. You forget that Einstein met with the withering dismissive skepticism

of would-be debunkers.

As did Galileo, Copernicus, Tesla...etc...etc...

Reality isn't constrained by testable results, only Science.

It wasn't the words that were nice, but the ideas.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Actually, Einstein was awarded his doctorate in physics

for one of his groundbreaking papers of 1905, and was soon able to give up his patent office job when he became a university lecturer. His ideas made sense - they were accepted for scientific publications.

http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/chronological_table.html

[indigobusiness]

62. He was viciously attacked for some time after

and it is a well-chronicled matter of record.

There were, however, many who were still unconvinced in the scientific community. Their reasons varied, ranging from those who disagreed with Einstein's interpretations of the experiments to those who simply thought that life without an absolute frame of reference was intolerable. In Einstein's view, many of them simply could not understand the mathematics involved. Einstein's public fame which followed the 1919 eclipse created resentment among this faction, some of which would last well into the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

[Squeegee]

97. He was also attacked viciously

... because he was a prominent Jew in Nazi Germany. He made those deluded Aryans look bad, I guess.

"After Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, expressions of hatred for Einstein reached new levels. He was accused by the National Socialist regime of creating "Jewish physics" in contrast with Deutsche Physik—"Aryan physics". Nazi physicists (notably including the Nobel laureates Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard) continued the attempts to discredit his theories and to politically blacklist those German physicists who taught them (such as Werner Heisenberg)."

[Tims]

83. These were not debunkers

All new theories are challenged, this is the nature of science, and they are challenged on legitimate grounds. Einstein's math was elegant, but it was years before there was any proof that his theories actually represented reality and many years before most could be confirmed. The scientific community was sceptical about Newtons laws of motion, because they couldn't be confirmed through direct measurements. Even though the math was able to allow more accurate predictions of motion, no one could say what really was going on. It was a long time for an objective way to prove that all masses actually have gravitational attraction to each because no instruments where sensitive enough to measure the attraction of non-planet sized objects under controlled conditions. This was true with almost all of Newton's ideas. The formulas were adopted, because they worked very well, but most scientist understood that this did not constitute proof. If one looks at the history of science, there are many many cases in which a theory is presented that has better predictive powers, yet turns out later to have no real relation to how things actually work. This is especially true in the more complex sciences such as biology. Many theories may fit the data, so it is only when the theories can be tested, that we can see if they indeed represent what is really going on.

Copernicus had no proof that the earth and the planets circled the sun, that proof would have to wait until Galileo pointed a telescope toward the heavens. Otherwise it was simply a clever mathematical model that was not really any better at predicting the motion of the planets than the refined Ptolemaic system in use at the time(this was because Copernicus assumed circular not elliptical orbits). Therefore there was no real reason to believe the Copernican system represented reality.

Galileo was not faced with debunkers or sceptics but religious leaders who feared the theological implications of his discoveries.

Tesla was an brilliant but eccentric genius, and was recognized as such early in his carrier. Thomas Edison worked hard to discredit him when he left his employ to work for Edison's rival Westinghouse. Telsa, in many ways, was a broken man after that and began many far fetched projects that eventually made him loose credit even among his peers. The belief that his exotic projects and ideas were being suppressed and that Tesla had somehow uncovered fantastic means of transmitting power, novel forms of electronic communication and other things are the same people who believe the government and the auto companies are suppressing the existence of the 100MPG carburetor. Not everything Tesla did was the work of genius, often it was the work of a man desperate and on the verge of mental breakdown coupled with a massive ego of his own infallability.

You say "Reality isn't constrained by testable results". You are wrong, reality is defined by testable results. Before something can be tested it is simply conjecture. We may accept it as reality for practical reasons in lieu of other less acceptable conjectures, but it is conjecture none-the-less. There is always an underlying reality whether we know what it is or not, but we cannot say, even if no better explanation exits, that a particular idea represents reality until it is tested.

The people who attempt to defend their claims by siting the persecution of the great thinkers of the past are simply trying to divert attention away from the examination of those claims. They are also poor students of history and always try to judge the past through the knowledge of today.

[indigobusiness]

85. You are wrong.

Reality is what it is, despite the limits of our ability to define it...or whatever it is we "accept", however we arrive at that acceptance.

Before Newton, Einstein etc, reality was no different than it is today, only our definition of it.

Herein is the folly of the Church of Scientism.

The full truth of reality is independent of human grasp, or even humanity at all.

[AZCat]

88. "Church of Scientism"?

That's a curious term - is it possible you mean the Church of Scientology?

I've never heard of the Church of Scientism. :shrug:

[indigobusiness]

89. Scientism

Scientism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The term scientism is a relatively newly coined word that refers to certain epistemologies based on science. The word has several different meanings:

Scientism usually means the acceptance of scientific theory and scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion.
Here, science is held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of public policy and even religion.
This viewpoint is typified by comments, such as "Science demonstrates that it is useless (or useful) to use seatbelts in cars" or "Science has shown that religion is wrong" or "Science shows that capitalism (or communism or socialism) is correct". In the case of such views as Marxism (and most types of totalitarian rationales) such views are also called historicism, relying on a "scientific" analysis of inevitable historical patterns.

snip

Finally, scientism can also refer to the attitude and method of the typical natural scientist. (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/75/S0147500.html))
This viewpoint is typified by comments, such as "there is one and only one method of science" or "there is one and only one way to conduct valid scientific research" as well as by attempts to limit intellectual debate to the hegemony of the established position of the scientific community. Medical scientism defines the term scientism in this sense of how valid medical research is supposed to be conducted.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[AZCat]

90. But how does that translate to being a "Church"?

You used the term "Church of Scientism". What does that mean?


Also - in the wikipedia article you provided, there was an interesting use of the term Scientism (I have pasted here):
Scientism can be a pejorative term, attributing, for instance, a "fetishization" of science to an individual.
This accusation is potentially linguistically troublesome, because someone accused of scientism could also indeed be a "scientist", but this adjective, if used by the accuser, fails utterly as a label for those accused of scientism. What in fact should you call someone you accuse of scientism? A scientismist?
Other "crimes" to which the "accusation of scientism" can be addressed include those exhibiting or proclaiming an ignorance (or denial) of a relationship/disjunction between metaphysical and natural phenomena.
This sense of the term comes close to Hannah Arendt's use of it in The Origins of Totalitarianism; in her view, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had made the human condition a matter of scientific exactitude, and thus otherwise impossible moral or ethical questions (such as, "Can a man be worthless? And if so, can we euthanize him?") are easily resolved within the internally-consistent "scientific" methods of the state.
</snip> (emphasis mine)


Is this how you are using the term - as a pejorative in the sense described here?

[lazarus]

92. using a term

with a questionable definition (strawman!) that uses an open source encyclopedia as its primary foundation is questionable, isn't it?

"Scientism" is nothing but a pejorative label, from someone who attacks us for ridiculing and attacking ideas we don't like. Go figure.

[AZCat]

93. The Wiki does link to a nice article by Dawkins...

A passage I find quite enlightening from Richard Dawkins: Is Science a Religion? is here (last and second-to-last paras - scroll down):

I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge — and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them.

But I would want to deny even the lesser charge of purely verbal zealotry. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation.
</snip>


Professor Dawkins says it well, and if the poster is, in linking the term "Scientist" with "Church", claiming science is a religion I think this passage is a fair defense on the part of science.

[trotsky]

102. You utterly missed his point.

He said: There is always an underlying reality whether we know what it is or not, but we cannot say, even if no better explanation exits, that a particular idea represents reality until it is tested.

You criticized: Reality is what it is, despite the limits of our ability to define it...

You merely restated what he already said. Or else you just didn't bother reading his complete post. Either way, your criticism of him is wrong, as are you.

[Tims]

104. I never said that science changes reality

nor would I imply that Newton or Einstein changed reality. But you imply that those who challenged Newton or Einstein were attempting to change reality. This is not true. To challenge a person to provide evidence of the truth of their ideas is not persecution. And it is hard not to read into your statements that since we can never know the truth then anyone who demands proof of a theory is somehow asking for the impossible.

I said we cannot begin to know what reality is without testing the ideas that people put forth. The point you seem to be making in most of your posts is that skeptics and debunkers are somehow attempting to challenge reality. You suffer from 20/20 hindsight. Because we now know Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin were correct, then are we to believe everyone who has ever challenged them were backward, blind and dogmatic fools. No! We cannot critically assess these challengers unless we can put ourselves in their place - limited by the knowledge and tools of their time.

Science's goal is to discover the truth, but anyone educated in the methods of science knows that they will never have "the full truth" of everything. But the truth or falsehood of a particular and bounded idea is often possible to obtain. Given a simple particular, such as whether the earth flat or is it round, there are simple tests which we can undertake which will prove both that the earth is not flat and that the earth is indeed spherical and not some other shape such as a donut (at least to the degree that we understand and can define what it means to be flat or spherical). Without resorting to extreme conjecture (such as we are all simply the dream of a giant computer located in the 5th dimension and the earth is just an illusion) the truth that the earth is spherical is a pretty well established fact.

You also suffer from the common malady commonly found among creation "scientist" and other religious fundamentalists (I'm not saying you are one) of accusing your opponents of practicing religion and that only they (you) practice or understand "real" science. I looked in the phone book here in Houston, which is a city of 4million people, and I didn't find a single listing for a "Church of Scientism" (sarcasm). This is what I believe psychologists call "projection".

[Squeegee]

94. Theories aren't 'debunked'

They are either supported or invalidated by evidence. Fraudulent claims are debunked.

[semillama]

80. in other words,

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence.

Check out J. M. Adovasio's The First Americans for an excellent example of this. He has an extraordinary claim, he has extraordinary evidence, and I think he's right about Meadowcroft Rockshelter.

In other other words, if you want to make a fantastic claim about something, then you need to be able to back it up with a logical chain of reasoning and evidence that supports your idea. This has to be testable or verifiable.

In the case of mysterious artifacts like those above, they have been scrutinized and found lacking, or they haven't been scrutinized yet. Or the evidence is simply lacking to say yea or nay on it. Take the supposed underwater city. Reason says that since there are numerous examples of geological formations resembling manmade structures, then that would be a likely explaination for them. In order to prove that it IS a man-made structure, you would need to have controlled systematic sampling of the area in question to locate any evidence for it being a structure built by and used by humans in the past. The best evidence of course would be the garbage and refuse left behind by the inhabitants, like with every single civilization that has ever existed. If you find tons of pottery sherds, tools, etc, in direct association with said underwater structure, then you have a good case for it being associated with an ancient civilization. Just look at any ancient city - look at the ground. Take Tula in Mexico - I was there this time last year, and everywhere you looked, there were broken pottery sherds littering the ground.

The archaeology rule of thumb is that people always leave behind traces of their behavior.

[lazarus]

82. I have a book

Called "Columbus Was Last". It examines all the evidence for other "discoveries" of the Americas, including some I had never heard of from China, etc.

Do I believe every one of them? No. But he lays a solid case that Columbus was definitely not first, that several civilisations have visited, and that man was in North America much earlier than previously thought.

As this evidence grows, we will become more and more certain about the dates of the earliest North Americans, but we'll never have a solid answer, because we'll never (hopefully) stop gathering new evidence.