| May 6, 2024, 1:53 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 24, 2001 12:52PM |
<HTML>> However, you have to remember that the OC is a key part of,
> the so-called, "Lost Civilisation Hypothesis (LCH)" - and
> particularly the, supposedly, "encoded" 10500BC.
Yes, I realized that while typing my answer and decided that it did not matter because I am not advocating any date whatsoever
I'm only following a train of thoughts.
As for that date, I'm getting more and more convinces of a few things. Mainly that archeoastronomy can make the same mistakes as mainstream sciences: being too confident in itself. It is one thing to observe the apparent correlations of stars and precession in accordance with one or another theory, but it is en entirely different matter to base a theory upon predictions of archeoastronomy.
In GH's defense I would say that he seems to me that he is more probably using archeoastronomy in support of a more global theory that is based on ancient legends, as opposed to have come up with his theory from an archeoastronomical prediction. If he had then his theory would be susceptible to complete invalidation upon disproving the archeoastronimical prediction. In this instance, you only remove one evidence from his case, and even if remove all evidences, his theory stands because it comes from the purpose of explaining myths like Atlantis, not archeoastronomy. All it says is that there was a lost civilisation. You cannot disprove the theory. And that is fine because it's not a scientific theory, he himself says that he is not a scientist. If you explain all his clues, his fingerprints, he will simply keep looking for new ones. To some people, and I would count myself among them, that's the beauty of it.
These observations are harder to make about RB, althought I have great respect for him and his work, I find the evidence is hardly supporting the case he is making. That doesn't mean I don't feel a slighly different case would be better served by the same evidences.
I liked this thread, I feel we managed to communicate.
All the best to you,
Francis.</HTML>
> the so-called, "Lost Civilisation Hypothesis (LCH)" - and
> particularly the, supposedly, "encoded" 10500BC.
Yes, I realized that while typing my answer and decided that it did not matter because I am not advocating any date whatsoever
I'm only following a train of thoughts.As for that date, I'm getting more and more convinces of a few things. Mainly that archeoastronomy can make the same mistakes as mainstream sciences: being too confident in itself. It is one thing to observe the apparent correlations of stars and precession in accordance with one or another theory, but it is en entirely different matter to base a theory upon predictions of archeoastronomy.
In GH's defense I would say that he seems to me that he is more probably using archeoastronomy in support of a more global theory that is based on ancient legends, as opposed to have come up with his theory from an archeoastronomical prediction. If he had then his theory would be susceptible to complete invalidation upon disproving the archeoastronimical prediction. In this instance, you only remove one evidence from his case, and even if remove all evidences, his theory stands because it comes from the purpose of explaining myths like Atlantis, not archeoastronomy. All it says is that there was a lost civilisation. You cannot disprove the theory. And that is fine because it's not a scientific theory, he himself says that he is not a scientist. If you explain all his clues, his fingerprints, he will simply keep looking for new ones. To some people, and I would count myself among them, that's the beauty of it.
These observations are harder to make about RB, althought I have great respect for him and his work, I find the evidence is hardly supporting the case he is making. That doesn't mean I don't feel a slighly different case would be better served by the same evidences.
I liked this thread, I feel we managed to communicate.
All the best to you,
Francis.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.