Why don't people take ancient astronaut theory seriously?

[Sonereal]

-deleted-

 

[Zkribbler]

It's a manifestation of the old maxim: "When you hear hoof beats, you should think horse, not unicorn."

I dunno. All of those things which ancient astronauts did, early humans could have done on their own. Maybe there were ancient astronauts here. But since there's no direct evidence of them, and because all of their teachings could have come from ourselves, I see no reason to believe in them.

 

[Borachio]

What is this idyllic view of history of which you speak?

Why would the existence of ancient astronauts threaten it?

Is there something intrinsically good about a home-grown civilization that is lacking in one transplanted from outer space, then?

But I agree with Mr Ribbler.

The hypothesis of ancient astronauts is too far-fetched to be credible without some extremely convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Occam's razor. It's possible ancient astronauts did everything people say they did. It's equally possible that this is all a computer program that was written by an alien intelligence last week and we're all just NPC's in his game of Grand Theft Spaceship: Earth City. There's an equal amount of proof for that theory, AKA none. History has a lot of interpretative aspects but mainstream historians at least try (usually) to limit their interpretation to things that aren't directly contradicted by established facts.

 

[Flying Pig]

Usually, because there are better, simpler explanations. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

 

[Ryika]

The ancient astronaut hypothesis (not theory) has 0 evidence backing it, it merely tries to provide an explanation for things that have (or had) no easy explanation. As such it is not disprovable and does by definition not fall into the realm of what the scientific method can be used for.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The hypothesis of ancient astronauts is too far-fetched to be credible without some extremely convincing evidence to the contrary.

Agreed.

Usually, because there are better, simpler explanations. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

Agreed again.

Ancient Egyptians and Mayans and any other culture that built pyramids or various kinds of astronomical observatories were not stupid. They were ignorant of some things, but it's not their fault that they lacked the tools or the means to make the tools that later led to more advanced discoveries. They were, however, skilled at geometry and engineering, and were highly motivated and creative builders.

So don't trot out "Chariots of the Gods" crap. There's no evidence for ancient astronauts, aliens, or other kinds of mystical nonsense.

 

[BvBPL]

Let's see.

There's no physical evidence of aliens. Sure, we see alleged evidence of human-alien interaction, things like the Nazca lines acting as space runways, but we don't see any physical evidence of the aliens themselves. Unless the aliens were perfectly fastidious about cleaning up after themselves, we'd see evidence of alien corpses or artifacts left behind. To a Paleolithic society, a metal piece from an alien ship would be a relic given great esteem. Surely at some point some piece of alien debris would have fallen into the hands of men and be retained both as an artifact and in the records.

The aliens were alleged to come during prehistory. There's no record of aliens coming during the rule of King Busypants VI or during the time of any other historic person to whom we can tie the arrival of aliens. All of the arrivals allegedly occur many, many years ago. This makes verification impossible. Given how far back records go in some civilizations, like five thousand years in the case of Egypt, if aliens came at some point in the last five thousand years there’d be a more concert record than the myths we hear about. This is particularly true for claims that aliens developed the pyramids and Nazca lines as both occurred during recorded history. Equally bothersome is the fact that they seem to target prehistoric societies.

The aliens seem to have visited different areas at different points in time. Stonehenge can be dated to about four thousand years ago, the Moai to thirty-five hundred years ago, and the Nazca lines to fifteen hundred years ago. If we were to suggest that aliens had a hand in those structures then they would have had to have visited over the course of twenty-five hundred years. Were they to do so then it would seem likely that they would have visited Britain when they also came down to make the Nazca lines. At that time, Britain was ruled by Rome and there assuredly would have been a historical record of the arrivals of the aliens.

The theories are not consistent. There is a claim that myths of sky-fathers and similar gods living in the clouds are indicative of alien contact. There are also claims that the Nazca lines and Stonehenge are evidence. However, the Nazca and Celtic peoples who developed those did not worship sky-father gods instead favoring sea and Earth gods, respectively. If aliens did visit the Nazca and Celtic peoples then presumably the religions and myths of those people would have developed into sky-father worship in the same manner that the thesis supporters claim happened in Egypt and other places.

The alien astronaut hypothesis fails to recognize the skill and ingenuity of man. A major claim in support of the hypothesis is that ancient man would not have been able to construct various mega structures like the pyramids, the Easter Island heads, and the Nazca lines. That really gives short shrift to the actual capabilities of humanity. Thor Heyerdahl proved that one could cross the Pacific Ocean using a boat created from Paleolithic techniques. No one claims that the Great Wall of China was built by aliens, and that was constructed several hundred years before the Nazca lines. By claiming that man needed aliens to construct things like the Easter Island heads, the adherents of this theories fail to account for the obvious ability of humanity to accomplish great things.

Where did they all go? So if are asked to consider the past presence of aliens on Earth, where are they now? There is zero evidence for the existence of aliens at this time. We don’t see Dysonian mega structures around stars, we do not receive alien communications, and we don’t see aliens flying around now. Alien life, as far as we can tell, does not exist right now. Which suggests that it may have never existed.

Travel between the stars is a scientific improbability. Current theories as to the energy required for interstellar travel suggest it would be economically infeasible at any stage of development. More so if the trip was expected to be fast, two-way, and using a limited crew.

Alien abduction reports can be explained using physiological phenomenon. You are asleep. You wake up, or seem to, but you can’t move your body. Faces hover over you. You cannot recall where you are. There is a feeling of dread. There may be a sexual element involved. Sound like an alien abduction? Those elements describe sleep paralysis, a natural oneiric event. You don’t need aliens to feel like you’ve been abducted.

Humans take a lot of drugs. As a race we love getting intoxicated. This occasionally leads to some wild stories.

Occam’s Razor cuts against them. Most of the evidence for alien astronauts can also be explained through human endeavors. Early agricultural societies knew that the Sun was a key requirement for healthy crops so they worshipped the Sun giving rise to sky-fathers. The mega structures alleged to have been created by aliens were also well within the capabilities of humanity. There’s little need to introduce the additional element of aliens when such things can be more readily explained using other proofs.

 

[jackelgull]

I feel the alien astronaut theory is extremely insulting to ancient humans. The ancients were not dumb brutes no smarter than animals, needing a higher intelligence to spoon feed them every accomplishment they ever had. I'd wager, though there's no objective way to gauge this, that humans back then were no less intelligent than now, it is just that their collective memory was limited, unlike today. I mean, inventions took so much longer back then not because humans were stupid, but because it took so long to spread, and knowledge was lost really easily, so people would have to reinvent the wheel again and again,so to speak.

 

[Flying Pig]

The ancient astronaut hypnosis (not theory) has 0 evidence backing it, it merely tries to provide an explanation for things that have (or had) no easy explanation. As such it is not disprovable and does by definition not fall into the realm of what the scientific method can be used for.

Well, that's true of an awful lot of history: there is no way to scientifically prove, for example, why the Great War began, but perhaps more ink has been spilled trying to do so than in any other academic endeavour. The problem isn't that it is trying to explain the inexplicable, but that it is trying to explain things which can easily be explained by other means. BvBPL's point about the ingenuity of man is exactly right: it is easy enough to see how and why people could have done the things attributed to aliens, so why talk about aliens at all?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How seriously do you want it to be taken?

I make no claims about KNOWING what went on before recorded history. I take all the speculation in stride, but never give any of it a whole lot of thought, because I am satisfied that it is all speculation. Can't be proven, can't be disproved, has no impact on day to day life...so what would be involved in this "taking it seriously"?

 

[Cutlass]

Clearly there were no ancient astronauts.

They were cosmonauts.

 

[Zkribbler]

Ancient Egyptians and Mayans and any other culture that built pyramids or various kinds of astronomical observatories were not stupid.

Indeed. I further submit that the existence of the "Bent Pyramid" indicates no extraterrestrial were involved. The Egyptians began building a pyramid, then realized it would likely collapse, and so lessened the slope of the pyramids. If extraterrestrials taught Egyptians to build pyramids, why did they give Egyptians bum instructions? Did aliens capable of traveling interstellar distance really not understand the science of piling rocks on top of each other?

 

[Ryika]

Well, that's true of an awful lot of history: there is no way to scientifically prove, for example, why the Great War began, but perhaps more ink has been spilled trying to do so than in any other academic endeavour.

The two are not comparable. We know the Great War began, so we know there is a reason it began, so we know we can evaluate the evidence we have to make assumptions.

The ancient astronaut hypothesis on the other hand is the end of a line. None of the evidence that is currently available to us could possibly prove that is is correct or even support the notion that it may be correct, so the scientific method is not applicable when trying to support the hypothesis.

Gathering evidence against the hypothesis is not required (or even interesting) because of Occam's razor.

The problem isn't that it is trying to explain the inexplicable, but that it is trying to explain things which can easily be explained by other means. BvBPL's point about the ingenuity of man is exactly right: it is easy enough to see how and why people could have done the things attributed to aliens, so why talk about aliens at all?

Well, I think I've already tackled that in the part above - it's two different parts of the same thing. The question was why people don't take the hypothesis seriously, not why it's not entertained as the a valid consideration.

Occam's razor is the reason why people usually don't entertain it as a reasonable explanation.

The fact that scientifically there is nothing that can be proven other than that X cultures have relics that are "somewhat extraordinary" means that even people who would be willing to entertain it as a possible explanation anyway (which is not that uncommon, that's how explanations thought to be correct are proven wrong) have no grounds to stand on. The end of any such endeavor would be "As expected we found no new evidence, continue to dismiss because of Occam's razor".

 

[Flying Pig]

The two are not comparable. We know the Great War began, so we know there is a reason it began, so we know we can evaluate the evidence we have to make assumptions.

The ancient astronaut hypothesis on the other hand is the end of a line. None of the evidence that is available to us could possibly prove that is is correct, so the scientific method is not applicable when trying to support the hypothesis.

Even then, I'm not sure that this is right. We're never going to have evidence which proves that the Great War was not started primarily because of aggressive German foreign policy, or because of a series of mistakes, or because of the crisis of world capitalism. It isn't a scientific question: there are more plausible and less plausible explanations, but few are actually falsifiable. Sometimes, but only rarely, we are left with one explanation that makes sense, but usually we have several. Historical events are usually overdetermined - that is, they have more visible causes than they need - while the observations of most scientists are the opposite.

I also don't buy Occam's Razor as a particularly good tool - we don't even apply it in practice, but instead ask for the explanation which requires the fewest jumps of logic from what we already know (hence 'extraordinary claims': this is based on some understanding of 'ordinary').

 

[Ryika]

Even then, I'm not sure that this is right. We're never going to have evidence which proves that the Great War was not started primarily because of aggressive German foreign policy, or because of a series of mistakes, or because of the crisis of world capitalism. It isn't a scientific question: there are more plausible and less plausible explanations, but few are actually falsifiable. Sometimes, but only rarely, we are left with one explanation that makes sense, but usually we have several. Historical events are usually overdetermined - that is, they have more visible causes than they need - while the observations of most scientists are the opposite.

That actually sounds exactly like a scientific question to me. We will not get a definitive answer through studying, that is true, but there are factors that support each hypothesis and the likelihood of each hypothesis being correct can be determined by studying these sources.

This is just not the case for the ancient astronaut hypothesis. Even if you are 100% convinced that the hypothesis is correct you cannot move further than "It is unlikely that these are drawings of astronauts, but in theory they may be".

I also don't buy Occam's Razor as a particularly good tool - we don't even apply it in practice, but instead ask for the explanation which requires the fewest jumps of logic from what we already know (hence 'extraordinary claims': this is based on some understanding of 'ordinary').

It is a good tool when it comes to determining where to invest your time. The most likely cause is the one you should be examining, because more times than not that will already be the correct one. It is not fail-proof obviously, and it's not supposed to be - Occam's Razor is not a tool to provide evidence or facts, it's a tool to lead you to where you should be looking for an explanation first.

Obviously it becomes less applicable the less we actually know about the subject, because our conclusions we make while using Occam's Razor will not be as informed.

 

[Berzerker]

I think its possible

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-americas-opinion-guest-authors/ant-people-hopi-00927

Here's my partial contribution, the evidence is found in myth and cosmology

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=559474

 

[warpus]

As if scientists are going to take ancient aliens seriously when they scoff at the mere suggestion of ancient unicorns and openly laugh at the hidden subterranean chambers underneath our cities, which house ancient reptilian Muslim extremists in cahoots with Obama and the illuminati.

 

[REDY]

I have actually read some books and its interesting intellectual exercise. Not science though.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

stuff

If anyone here wants to read your nonsensical ramblings about Marduk and how you don't believe in most of the comets that exist, your thread is still there. No need to drag it into this one as well.