Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Debunking Atlantis and Ancient Astronauts

The latest eSkeptic newsletter has a worthwhile read titled “A New Mythology: Ancient Astronauts, Lost Civilizations & the New Age Paradigm“, written by skeptic Tim Callahan:

Authors with little knowledge of either myth or history, and even less of science, have generated an entire new genre that is being embraced by educated and intelligent people. It is a genre in which idiosyncratic interpretation of myth, bad history, and questionable science have been melded to create a new paradigm, one that has the potential to challenge reason and science to the same degree as Bible-based creationism.

Callahan obviously argues from a point of view (that of cynic/skeptic), and I would take issue with a few points – or more precisely, his method of picking and choosing. However, overall, it’s a necessary read for anybody interested in ‘alternative history’, to better understand orthodox views/explanations of a number of the associated ‘mysteries’ in the genre.

Editor
  1. Sceptics
    Many years ago I wrote a piece arguing a sceptic wouldn’t know a certain function was occuring until it was running down the leg. I now know I was naive – such things wouldn’t happen in their designer paradigms.
    I’m not against scepticism – I employ it a lot myself. But it must be tempered by a degree of humility to the unknown. An example: the CIA created the UFO as dis-information to cover their aeronautics. I’m not saying this is true, but even if it was, we are left with a cultural mystery. How did it spur so many sightings, beliefs, etc? It is truly fascinating, magical – and so ignored by sceptics.
    Early scientists realised the importance of imagination – didn’t Keynes call Newton the ‘last great magician’? Imaginative people, unafraid of speculation and going to places anew, created the modern scientific paradigm. Once in place, along comes orthodoxy – scientists and thinkers who uphold the system. In the main I think they are shortsighted and unimaginative.
    Don’t get me wrong. We need our sciences to be refined, and we need a stringent system to accept or deny ideas. But the reality is, true paradigm shifts will always come from ‘outside’ this orthodoxy.
    This is where pseudoscholarship is so important. Yes, most of it IS rubbish. But somewhere, sometime, something new and brilliant will come from this crazy free-flow of information and ideas.
    Refering back to my initial comment, I think sceptics need to look at the back of their paradigms now and again and get a reality check.

    I’m certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain.

    Anthony North

    1. It’s definitely a case of
      It’s definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle rusty.

      Yes, a lot of nonsense jumped onto the Graham Hancock bandwagon, but in my opinion, researchers such as Hancock, Robert Bauval, Colin Wilson, and many others have a better grasp and sharper eye for mythology than the so-called experts. Just as Joseph Campbell did in the 1960s, these alternative thinkers made mythology approachable and applicable again. That’s a good thing. I would hardly say Graham Hancock has “little knowledge of either myth or history”; the bibliography in Hancock’s book is a hundred times longer than the bibliography of Callahan’s opinion piece.

      As Albert Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge”. And as Anthony North rightly points out, breakthroughs and answers have almost always originated from left-of-field free-thinkers and alternative minds who don’t follow the status quo, and forge their own paths.

      I’d also like to challenge Tim Callahan to point out what exactly makes Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods “New Age”? That’s a tired old trick long employed by debunkers; label something alternative as “New Age”, and mud sticks. Hancock is also a far cry from the likes of Erich Von Daniken; again, mud sticks.

      Of course, Callahan will completely ignore Zahi Hawass’s stunning backflip regarding the shafts of the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the enigmatic stone doors that block them. There’s only one thing worse than fake New Age nonsense, and that’s Skeptic hypocrisy.

      1. Even Erich Can Have Value
        We can perhaps extend the value of even the more unbelievable pseudoscholarship. First of all, let’s be slightly ‘tongue in cheek.’
        Have you noticed how scepticism of ‘alternative’ subjects has led to quite a few sceptic ‘careers’? I can think of quite a few personalities who no one would have heard of if it wasn’t for the odd pseudoscholar or psychic. Come on guys, let’s have a bit of gratitude here!
        More seriously, I’ve noticed that archaeology quite often owes new ideas to the impetus given to the subject by the need to disprove a pseudoscholastic idea.
        Recently much reconstructive archaeology has been done in this spirit of debunking – and a great deal has been learnt by doing so. Consider, also, the more cranky pseudoscholar’s love of diffusionism. We must ask: would we know as much, today, about the roots of civilisations if archaeology hadn’t been driven to disprove it?
        The sceptic and the pseudoscholar often have a symbiotic relationship which drives knowledge forward.

        1. in defense of amateurs
          We can be cynical about conspiracy theorists, and people with wildly improbable explanations for historical events. Let us call them “amateurs”, because these people don’t have a professional record in their chosen field.

          The “psuedoscholars” that anthonynorth talks about could also be called amateurs.

          But as long as we don’t base a significant amount of resources on this stuff, what is the harm? Ok, perhaps we are counteracting education by taking these people too serious.

          But see what is going on in other fields. There are plenty of people making tons of money in the music business, in the movie business, and in politics (to name a few businesses), who have no earthly idea what they are doing.

          So let us tolerate that some amateurs are making a little money of this. Let’s just not let it seep into serious education.

          —-
          2 is not equal to 3 – not even for large values of 2

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal