Forgetting How To Science

Ancient Aliens
Ancient Aliens

So, I’ve been watching Ancient Aliens on Netflix.  Caught this show a couple of times when we still had satellite a few years ago.  I had already read work by Erich von Däniken, Eric Norman, and Zecharia Sitchen before I caught that show.  I had already had ponderings of my own while watching the many educational shows over the years; none of which mentioned aliens or any of those men and their thoughts, nor none of my musings being more than a superficial, “I bet aliens were here.”  It’s not really a surprise I would be drawn to think this way.  I have been enamoured by aliens and sci-fi, as well as history from since I can remember.  Who’s to say I would never end up combining the two.

Watching this show, however, makes me think of Zahi Hawass, who is a rather controversial Egyptologist to begin with.  Bless his little heart.  He becomes so flustered and fussy when anyone talks about Ancient Egypt in a way that he does not agree with.  His fussiness is actually quite adorable.  One is that he opposes the Afrocentrism theory, that is to say that Ancient Egyptians were black Africans.  I kind of agree with him on that point.  It is not to say that Ancient black Africans weren’t ingenious or produce architectural marvels or rule over great cities.  They did.  They most certainly did.  They created some truly remarkable things.  No, my reasoning is art.  Art imitates life.  Artists never choose colours all willy nilly.  When they are representing real people, they choose colours accordingly.  In all of the art of humans, not of gods, Egyptians were tan, much they way they would depict other ancient Middle Easterners they would trade with or fight against.  Later invaders such as the Greeks and the Romans were a lighter shade than the Egyptians.  The Nubians to the south in what we now call Ethiopia were black.  And I mean jet black.  If the Egyptians and the Nubians were similar in race, the artists would have reflected that and not had such a huge colour gap between the two races, and a closer colour range with other Middle Easterners.  It’s not to say that they weren’t black Africans, but I’ve not seen much proof that made me go, “Ah-ha!  There we go.”

The Afrocentrists say that Ancient Egyptians didn’t recognize races.  I’m not really sure where they are trying to go with that.  If they didn’t recognize race, everyone would be the same colour.  The hieroglyphs would read that “other peoples looking just like us tried to invade.”  But the hieroglyphs don’t say that.  They say, “other peoples looking completely unlike us with their curly hair and lighter skin tried to invade.”  Or “we buy gold from other peoples looking just like us, The Nubians, to the south.”  But it doesn’t.  The description reads more like this, “we buy gold from the very dark-skinned Nubians to the south.”

If that’s not recognizing races, then just slap me now with a herring!

Math
Math

Anyway.  The other thing Zahi Hawass gets hopping mad over are Ancient Alien Theorists, because they state that the Ancient Egyptians did not make the pyramids and other structures of their own ingenuity, that they had help, were given information, etc.”

I don’t think that ancient peoples were stupid, that they couldn’t possibly come up with things like this.  But no one comes up with things solely on their own.  No one.  People have original idea’s every day, but their roots are based in things they already know.  Nothing is ever completely brand new.  And of the roots to those original ideas, those are things you learned because someone taught you.  Or you saw it first somewhere else and then tried to replicate it.  None of it’s actually new or original.  In the case of Ancient peoples, main stream science will always say, “Math.”  They knew math, therefore were able to come up with all sorts of ways to build things.  But math is something that someone has to teach you; you have to learn it; you are never born simply knowing math.  No one simply comes up with math from day dreaming at the clouds of hunting and gathering or even pondering.  You could ponder your entire life, but if you have never been surrounded by math, you will never know any math.  You won’t have just suddenly had an epiphany and then you are a math whiz capable of measuring things or formulating and solving equations.  And that is why I am an Ancient Alien Theorist, because of all the times I heard math as an excuse, but no one was talking about how you must first be taught math to know and use math.  Someone always has to teach one something in order for them to learn it; to know it.  Someone had to be teaching Ancient man, or else we would not have gotten very far at all.

Most would say that’s a crazy idea, but just look at life today.  If you do not know how to do something, you can not excel, and how does one start knowing something?  By learning, by being taught.  It’s everywhere.  Not only must you be taught all types of math to be a scientist, you must also be taught how to flip burgers or use a mop even to work at a fast food chain, one of the lowliest jobs.  You have to be taught to do everything, either through actual back and forth of information or by observation.  An infant staring at the ceiling all day can’t just suddenly know how to bathe or feed itself or how to walk.  They must be taught and they must observe to actually learn how to do basic human things, much less freaking math!

Ancient Hindu Dieties
Ancient Hindu Dieties

Now, I really liked Ancient Alien Guy, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, back when I first watched the show.  He made me all happy.  But, once so far in this series, I’ve called bullshit on him.  They were talking about Die Manna Machine, that possibly manna from heaven was a machine that took water vapour in through a filter and then made chlorella algae into wafers.  Ok, sure, sounds cool.  Not a problem, I can listen to this.  Where I call bullshit is when Tsoukalos said something in reference to Die Manna Machine and who might have given the information to the Israelites.  How it obviously wasn’t God, because he believes in God and God is God.  No, that it had to be some Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.

Wait… what?  How can you sit there and say that all of the gods of the world are EBE’s but not the Judeo-Christian God?  If gods are all EBE’s then all gods are EBE’s, INCLUDING the Judeo-Christian God.  For one, with a statement like that you’re just saying that everyone else is stupid.  They saw EBE’s and thought, “Oooh, we’re so dumb and uncivilized, so that must be our god.”  But then your god is somehow different and better and actually is a omnipotent being?  Two, it’s illogical to state that no one was seeing anything holy or omnipotent, but were seeing aliens and believing they were gods, only to turn around and basically say, “Except for God.”  Nope.  Not buying it dude.  They’re either all magical gods or they’re aliens.  I’d include pure imagination here, but I don’t believe that people have pure imagination, everyone’s already creating what they’ve seen before.  Example:  Someone uses their imagination to come up with a world that has blue tree’s and candy coated roads.  Sure, that’s imagination, but one has already seen blue, tree’s, candy, and roads before.  Even when one sees something they have never seen before, whether in a dream or in reality, their brains main function in that instance is to make it knowable; to close that gap of uncertainty, so it becomes, “I don’t really know what it was, but it looked like a bird.”

Which is one reason I can get on board with the explanation of myths of gods flying in chariots or on birds are people seeing something they’ve never seen before so their brain closes the gap and it becomes what they DO know; a bird, a chariot, a cross, etc.  We’re no more stupid than our ancient ancestors, which is to obviously say, we’re not stupid and neither were they.  But today if you see something and you do not know what it is, you associate it with something that you do know.

The Giant Panda, considered unreal until a live one was found in 1919, though a skin had been obtained in 1869.
The Giant Panda, considered unreal until a live one was found in 1919, though a skin had been obtained in 1869.

I have also seen enough educational shows to know that science doesn’t follow its own rules.  More things have been proven with far less evidence because it fits what science already believes to be true.  Science is supposed to judge, to see patterns, to have proof, but to also know that things change.  I have far greater respect for the scientist that says, “This is what we know up to this point, but who knows what else we’ll discover.”  than the all too common, and very scientifically wrong statement of, “Nope, not possible.  Nope, where’s your proof.  Nope, not listening.  Well, we found such and such item, but we just know something older is to be found so we’re sticking with this train of thought and disregarding your finding that goes against where we’re going.  That’s impossible.  That’s not probable.  No, no, and nope!”

Science has a shrewd mind, yes, but not a narrow mind.  You are to take in all of the information, whether you yourself understand it or not and then weigh it against variables and form questions and find a median line to follow.  And continue to do that, basically.

It’s one thing to say, “We have seen evidence, it’s worth further exploring, but we haven’t found anything else to support that… but you never know.” than to say, “What?  No, we won’t even consider that because no, that’s why.”

The latter statements have, to me, made the scientific community look like idiots more times than not.  And I mean, those people in main stream science, those people who actually make that last statement.  Two, of a myriad of examples include, thinking Chinese people were beyond stupid and not even wanting anything to do with the ridiculous “Giant Panda” fairy tale.  Turns out that there was plenty of evidence once they started actually looking, that would have warranted further investigations, they just didn’t see the need from the get go because a Giant Panda is preposterous.  Then when a scientist just randomly happened upon all of the information and the Giant Panda itself, Science said, “We knew it all along!”

oxalis-adventure-tour-FB…-looking-out-to-garden-of-edam-doline3-hang-son-doong-
Sơn Đoòng Cave, Vietnam

Or to make asinine statements that you couldn’t possibly know the answer to, such as “There is nothing new left to discover on earth.  Nothing at all.  No huge findings, no important findings.  We’ve done it all.”  Then to find 441 new plant and animal species in a three-year period all endemic to the Amazonian rain forest is a huge find, and it is also something that most will say, “Oh, it’s been done!  The Amazonian Rain Forest?  Who cares.  Nothing new there.”  Or to find the ginormous Sơn Đoòng Cave in Vietnam is very huge news.  The cave is so large that in one portion alone you could fit a half mile block of 40 story buildings.  There’s always something new, perhaps it’s not every year something so phenomenal is discovered, but it’s a pretty regular occurrence.  All of your very illogical and unscientific reasonings of “Someone would have found it by now, if it existed, so therefore it does not exist”, which besides NOT being what science is about, makes you look like a fool because you are constantly being main-stream-science-proven wrong!  It happens so much that you would figure that main stream science would realize they are science-ing wrong, which in fact, they are.

Vetrified stone at Sainte Suzanne (Mayenne), France
Vetrified stone at Sainte Suzanne (Mayenne), France

I’m not saying we’ll ever know exactly what happened in ancient times, but to disregard proof of things because they don’t fit in your little narrow mind is ridiculous.  One example is that at the site of the ancient city of Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan.  Main stream science see’s this:  We know for a fact, (eh!  wrong, thanks for playing though), that there was no nuclear bombs until we made them in the 1940s.  So, you’re ridiculous rantings of nuclear fall out 4,000 years ago can’t possibly be true and we won’t look at the evidence.  Which, if they cleared their minds of garbage like that, which they very well should if they actually want to be in the field of science they would say, “Hmm… these ARE interesting points.  It does certainly raise questions as to why vitrification isn’t being questioned and isn’t even being talked about.

I will say that while I do understand science, which is at its core level to find explanations to questions.  When there is a question, science is to want to know the answer.  That does not mean finding your answer, but the answer to the best of your ability.  It may prove the hypothesis, it may not.  It might even open an entirely new vein of questions.  It’s all about wanting to know, not that you have all of the answers.  It is also about testing, testing, testing, and testing again.

Radiocarbon Dating samples
Radiocarbon Dating samples

You never say no to questions and you never arrogantly assume you know all the answers.  That is not science.  Science is logical.  Science does not say, “Well, such and such is purported to be this old, and the carbon testing we did only shows it to be the 1800s, so we’ll test again until we get the more appropriate answer because contamination can and does happen all the time with samples.”  to “Well, we carbon tested once, and that is enough because this test is accurate.  No there’s no contamination to be had.”  Nope, sorry, thanks for playing.  It’s either accurate enough with one test and no contamination… or else it isn’t.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too with science.  You can’t change the rules when it suits you.  It’s the changing the rules and the not remembering how to science that makes me stop listening to main stream science half the time when they are talking.  So, when they don’t want to find out answers, they’ve forgotten how to science and I can’t take them seriously.

I will also admit that it is fun to adhere to certain theories.  If they were proved by science (and not this unscience bullshit) to be untrue, I’d go, “OK, but it was still a fun theory.”  Theories of Ancient Aliens or theories of European people being in America well before Columbus.  Also just random things like faeries and big foot.  It’s fun, it makes my world fun.  But you can’t just shrug things off because they don’t fit into the narrow box you’ve wedged yourself into.  You don’t even have to explore every single little thing that comes up, but when you ignore something that is very perplexing with enough evidence (and less than other things you want to explore further) to warrant a further search, but simply say no, then to you, I say, “My good sir (or madame) you have forgotten how to science correctly!”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s