<HTML>Dear Joanne,
I don't think so at least not the good ones. Oh yes speculation does come into play... speculation based on evidence. I would also agree with you that Archaeology is not pure science but it does attempt to use science to better understand the material culture left behind by the ancients.
I have never had any dealing with CSICOP and as far as I know I have read nothing by them.
I do not believe that science does such a good job when it comes to understanding things of the spirit. That's why I believe that those subjects are better left to people that have contact with spiritual knowledge. I greatly enjoyed Houston Smith's Cleansing the Doors of Perception and a bit less his Why Religion Matters. But I would not read him to find out about ancient Egypt.
I also have learned a great deal from Jung.
Again Ian said of Jung: "In fact Jung believed that it was pointless to speculate in intellectual ways about things that were unprovable. Jung accepted that our understanding of the Divine came through spiritual experience mediated by feeling, intuition, and sensation."
I take this to mean what I have stated above. Since science does poorly in understanding things of the spirit I feel that religion does just as poorly dealing with matters better left to science. That is why I get troubled when people accept with faith alone ideas that are set forth to explain how the ancients may or may not have accomplished certain technological achievements. Faith is better served in religion as science by hard fact and proof. That some get them confused is not the fault of the systems but of the users.
To give an example of a recent post by Don Barone. This is only two sentences excerpted from the post and I hope it does not portray an incorrect view of how Don feels.
Author: Don Barone
Date: August-06-01 08:48
...........
"People are amazed that there are those ( like me ) who will accept these types of discoveries at face value and without proof. They are accepted ( by me at least ) because I sense that there are many things in our world that have been lost and are simply waiting to be re-discovered. ......."
My point in using this example is that this statement is more about faith and belief (a religious model) than about fact, evidence and proof (a scientific rigor). I would caution Don about using faith and belief to evaluate extraordinary claims unless those claims are about God and things of the spirit. In which case "through spiritual experience mediated by feeling, intuition, and sensation" one can more properly come to understanding.
Greg Reeder</HTML>