<HTML>Mikey Brass wrote:
>
> If someone says "this and that" cannot be falsified,
> then that something has become a belief system.
I agree. I believe we have a similar view on this, except I do not consider that bad.
> If something is recognised as having a falsifiable basis,
> then it is a valid theory
Then it is a valid <i>scientific</i> theory.
I think I have a point to make here, given the two answers I just gave you, but it'll require quite a bit of an explaination.
This is the way I see what many people here describe as 'othodox' vs 'alternative':
Science does a VERY good job at adopting theories that hold the best evidence at one point in time. Why not trust science as a safeguard ? It has served us well so far.
I have no problem with Hancock and the stories in his books as I don't hold them to be scientific, nor do I feel that it is their goal to be. My feeling is that his shows on TV and his books are an entertaining way to discover the world and introduce yourself in the world of History.
Of course I also understand the mainstream History view which sees this as, at best, "misinformation", and at worst "lies to sell books". My feeling on this is that people don't turn off their brains when they watch something like this, and that whatever happens, if evidences don't support a theory, the theory won't make it to History books, period.
To me that's what's important. On one side you have History books, telling a story, most probable. On the other side you have alternative history books, which sell to people curious about weird things. I have a friend who collects books about ghosts, he doesn't believe in much of this, but he loves to read those.
I for one love to read about hollow earth theories, I think it's a fascinating idea in many ways (The history of the claim being fascinating in itself), even if clearly impossible.
It is no mistery to anybody that much of Hancock is based off Cayce, from which he spawned his own idea, I find that aspect of the story fascinating too.
In very much the same way as "Egypt Beyond The Pyramids" was extremely informative (I really loved it), "Search for the LC" was entertaining. GH's book "Heaven's Mirror" contains beautiful pictures, when I open it now, it's more for the pictures than for the text, but this is a whole, and it is entertaining. As I put it one time, he makes me travel in my head, just like EBTP did.
After all, all this got me here; It got me into reading mainstream history books for the first time since school.
My point is that, there is no nead to draw a line between orthodox and alternative, there are only people with theories, some scientific, some not, and there are History Books, with a big H. They don't necessarily hold all the truth, but it's a safe guess that you get the 'less flawed' version available. Usually.
If you see again my first reply at the top of this post, it'll make sense. To me it <i>is</i> a belief system (the starting point being LC+10500BC), but I don't mind. Like ... I'm not catholic but I liked reading the bible. That's not to say I didn't find any fault in it.
Most religious books will give you answers, will tell you things happened a way that are scientifically impossible for them to have happenned. Is this to say we should forbit those books or argue about their literal content being scientific or not, and therefore, having the right to voice its teachings or not ?
Francis.</HTML>
