Archaeology That Isn't
I found a great website on pseudoarchaeology, the kinds of theories formed outside respected archaeological circles. It has a good outline of what pseudoarchaeologists have been up to, including lost civilizations, visitors from space, and super-early Europeans in America.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pseudoarchaeology
The best part of this site is the links. We have religious links like Answers in Genesis, where they have a soundbite from a radio program claiming scientists don’t even understand evolution. They say that bacteria immune to antibiotics is a sign of de-evolution, not evolution, so fits better with the Bible’s view of the world breaking down due to overwhelming sin. Sounds good, except the show’s concept of evolution is skewered: they see evolution as progress, while scientists see evolution as adaptation (fyi, if you tend to think of evolution as a process toward betterment with humans at the top, it makes it easier to think that your well-being is the only thing that matters -- that’s my opinion). There are also links to websites that try to refute some pseudoarchaeology, which I believe is a good thing. Archaeologists can’t just sit in ivory towers and sneer smugly at authors without masters degrees. If we want the general public to know the problems with some of these claims, we have to take the time to explain it. We can’t just say "that guy’s a crackpot" and expect everyone to agree. Pseudoarchaeology is pretty popular and at times actually helps archaeology get noticed, so we can’t just bat it away. I believe that if you disagree with something, learn about it. Then you have the ability to make convincing arguments against it. That’s why I know so much about Britney Spears.
Keep in mind that I’m a graduate student of archaeology, so I obviously don’t agree with most pseudoarchaeology. Most. Of course aliens were here! Of course!
http://www.answers.com/topic/pseudoarchaeology
The best part of this site is the links. We have religious links like Answers in Genesis, where they have a soundbite from a radio program claiming scientists don’t even understand evolution. They say that bacteria immune to antibiotics is a sign of de-evolution, not evolution, so fits better with the Bible’s view of the world breaking down due to overwhelming sin. Sounds good, except the show’s concept of evolution is skewered: they see evolution as progress, while scientists see evolution as adaptation (fyi, if you tend to think of evolution as a process toward betterment with humans at the top, it makes it easier to think that your well-being is the only thing that matters -- that’s my opinion). There are also links to websites that try to refute some pseudoarchaeology, which I believe is a good thing. Archaeologists can’t just sit in ivory towers and sneer smugly at authors without masters degrees. If we want the general public to know the problems with some of these claims, we have to take the time to explain it. We can’t just say "that guy’s a crackpot" and expect everyone to agree. Pseudoarchaeology is pretty popular and at times actually helps archaeology get noticed, so we can’t just bat it away. I believe that if you disagree with something, learn about it. Then you have the ability to make convincing arguments against it. That’s why I know so much about Britney Spears.
Keep in mind that I’m a graduate student of archaeology, so I obviously don’t agree with most pseudoarchaeology. Most. Of course aliens were here! Of course!
posted by Kris at 3:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home