It kind of is.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Why don't people take ancient astronaut theory seriously?
- Thread starter Sonereal
- Start date
It kind of is.
Also depends on how strong a term you view 'unlikely'/'likely' as being, again in a given context. My point is that it is a bit falsely certain to be deeming events we cannot know about, as 'unlikely' IF some of the parameters crucial to those events are not that unlikely to have been true. And main parameter in that case is alien civs capable/willing to visit BC era isolated humans.
Already noted that (afaik) the writers peddling the ancient austronauts theories are rather low-level, so i am not bothering with their writings at all, just reflecting on the event happening or not.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Sure, but if we have 0 (ZERO) evidence for something, and no other reason to think it's true.. zero reasons. It might as well be something someone made up for a novel he's writing, since there's no reason for us to believe it's true, using the word "unlikely" makes perfect sense.
It's unlikely only because it's made up. If it wasn't purely made up, there'd be some evidence, or some reason that suggests that it may be true. But there are literally 0 such reasons, making it unlikely. IMO
It's unlikely only because it's made up. If it wasn't purely made up, there'd be some evidence, or some reason that suggests that it may be true. But there are literally 0 such reasons, making it unlikely. IMO
We don't have zero evidence for anything, though. There is plenty of evidence which can be explained by the ancient astronauts idea: the problem is that it can also be explained by other ideas which are easier to believe, and require a much smaller revision of our picture of the universe, and leave much fewer things unexplained.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
There is no evidence out there that points to "ancient astronauts" as the answer to anything. 0. Like, literally zero.
If such evidence existed, one could put together a proper scientific theory, with predictions and such, a theory which jived with such evidence and any other data we have. But we don't have anything like that, just random musings of people. That's not the same as evidence. Evidence would be something concrete, not just a "what if"
If such evidence existed, one could put together a proper scientific theory, with predictions and such, a theory which jived with such evidence and any other data we have. But we don't have anything like that, just random musings of people. That's not the same as evidence. Evidence would be something concrete, not just a "what if"
What would a predictive scientific theory look like when applied to a historical event? Could you give me an example of one, and how you would test its predictions?
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
By that logic we have an infinite amount of evidence that gods exist.
We do, but we also have better explanations. What I'm trying to get at is that evidence doesn't just point neatly at one thing when you're talking about historical events. The sum total of the evidence fits better with some explanations than others, and you have some explanations which wouldn't work if small elements of the explanation or the evidence were different. Usually we think of those as good explanations. Hence 'God built the Parthenon' or 'aliens built the Parthenon' are not usually considered good, because they could explain anything, but something along the lines of 'Pericles had the Parthenon built to celebrate the victory against Persia' is, because every element of the explanation depends on something we know, and a small change in the evidence (for example, dating the building to a few years earlier or later) would make that explanation difficult to defend.
Well no, me telling you that I'm 5000 years old and personally witnessed ancient astronauts is evidence. It's non-credible circumstantial evidence, but it's still evidence.
Exactly. The problem with these theories is not that they are wrong, but that they are not even wrong.
This is correct; history isn't about scientific arguments, except in some points of detail. You don't prove most things conclusively true or false, it's about creating explanations and evaluating how plausible they are. I can't imagine any piece of evidence that would ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Battle of Hastings did not take place in 1066, but I can think of several which might incline us to doubt it. For more complicated questions, this is all that we can have. The questions about history which are really interesting - most importantly, questions of why things happened - are not falsifiable.
So if Neanderthals didn't have space shuttles, it's their own fault?
That's ridiculous. It's like saying it's my fault if I don't own a transporter pad. The knowledge to make such a thing doesn't exist, and neither do all the materials. For that matter, how to use it safely isn't known either - in real world terms, not technobabble terms.
Invent a time machine and spend many, many years making observations. And don't get caught at it, or do anything to give anyone the impression that you yourself are the "god" you're trying to see if it really existed.
Sure, if you think they could have built space shuttles.
I don't think you could build a transporter pad.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well, then it seems we're using 'evidence' in a different context. To me evidence is the product of scientific investigation, but looking at the dictionary the word seems to have a much broader range of possible usage than the German word I am equating it to.
But frankly, Historians use the scientific method to analyze the past just as any scientist uses the scientific method. The point where they stop being scientists is when they start making assumptions on the evidence that is available. So any definition that says there is evidence for gods seems to be utterly useless to me, because this...
...just does not work once you accept that factors outside of what can be scientifically observed may play a role. You cannot assign plausibility to something that is outside of what we assume to be true about reality. The number is either 0 (because we ignore it), or it's unknown.
The point I would make is that these theories were actually debunked decades ago, and in the absence of compelling new evidence, need not be reexamined.
I would also appeal to the Sagan Standard: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Sagan initially approved of the idea that extraterrestrials visited earth, but after investigating argued, "...that the chances of extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth are vanishingly small."
Well, let's not pretend that anyone knows how prehistoric man developed a first language, or how communication was happening prior to that.
"Because aliens" usually is meme-worthy, but this doesn't negate the fact that so are myriad other concurrent 'because x' theories about such matters.
"Because aliens" usually is meme-worthy, but this doesn't negate the fact that so are myriad other concurrent 'because x' theories about such matters.
Richard Leakey devotes an entire chapter to the very subject of prehistoric man and language in his 1994 book The Origin of Humankind. Like much of (palaeo)anthropology, there are competing schools of thought on the matter. 
Richard Leakey devotes an entire chapter to the very subject of prehistoric man and language in his 1994 book The Origin of Humankind. Like much of (palaeo)anthropology, there are competing schools of thought on the matter.
I know, there are even entire (huge) books on this, but obviously anything on the prehistoric era will sort of not be based on... written records
Similar threads
