Originally posted by wakingmind Seems to me that tangible evidence to the contrary might make said group of general propositions rather
incoherent as a means of explaining a class of phenomena.
But please, I'm sure your command of the english language far exceeds mine, so excuse me for sinking deeper into my quagmire of stupidity, pal.
Oh, now I've gone and caused offence. I was actually being quite sincere...my sarcasm is much, much richer. But here's chapter and verse from
Wiki:
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for
ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in
its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be
functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of
phenomena.
en.wikipedia.org...
In other words, in science, a theory is the best possible explanation given what we know...which is to say that it is considered factual unless it can
be disproven. You need to go through both life and science using a baseline of knowlege. That is wrapped up in a 'theory'.
I mean you can argue this if you want, but you're better of investigating what I say, first. And no, no offence taken.
Secondly, regarding your comment:
but I also know that Michael Cremo didn't go out and bury these bones and artifacts to sell books. Maybe his theories are wrong, but at least
he's trying to answer questions that mainstream science is completely ignoring.
you are working under two misapprehensions...first that Cremo's examples are all that he says they are, or found where it is said they were, etc,
etc. You know what they say...if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Cremo is famous for zebras...they suit his agenda.
Secondly, that mainstream science did not or can not explain some of his phenomena.
Finally, you know, sometimes we just don't know why something is the way it is. PhDs are awarded to those trying to find out, and fame goes to those
who are sucessful. Scientists go into their fields becasue they have asked the same sort of questions
you are.
It all comes down to what you want to accept as fact. Somebody elses flawed explanations, or the ones you dig up. And I'll tell you, the adventure is
not in the knowing...it is in the seeking.
Finally...no, you're not stupid. I've studied a little archaeolgy, is all.
Peace
