reply to post by dajabba
...More importantly do you realize that wikipedia is not a valid source? It a user-based encyclopedia created from accounts (USUALLY CREDIBLE) in
order for the public to have a free source of pertinent information (stated by wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself). There are many discrepancies
in wikipedia and you will find that scientists and researchers themselves do not give their work to the website. This is for two reasons:
1. It is not an established legitimate research institution.
2. It is not a academic journal which allows for peer evaluation of results. (By peer evaluation I mean peers with credentials and not internet
slugs like you and me).
So, I'm now going to brilliantly contradict myself and say it seems that wikipedia, is in fact, correct about its assertion of the Bosnian pyramids as
a probable hoax. While Dr. Osmanagic does have a degree from the University of Sarajevo (a fact I doubt you even verified), his ideas seem
self-serving and in no way contribute to the scientific community.
UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. It appears that in 2006 they were sending a legitimate archaelogical
squad to the site. I'll now quote a letter of protest in order to prevent "the visit of the UNESCO experts to this area [to] be allowed to be
represented by Mr. Osmanagic as support for his pseudoarchaeological claims." I understand the internal bias represented in the letter, but the
accusations seem to be especially relevant with the claims Osmanagic has made.
Why?
QUOTE:
www.archaeology.org...
"Mr. Osmanagic has no credentials in archaeology. His work, in fact, carries all the
hallmarks of pseudoarchaeology, as recently defined in some detail. Many features of
his project make this conclusion clear: Osmanagic reached his conclusions about the
existence of alleged pyramids before investigative work was carried out, to the point of
even naming the supposed pyramids; the work was undertaken to prove Mr. Osmanagic's
conclusions, not to test them (he says, on his own webpage: "I am working intensively on
proving the improvable"); extreme, history-altering claims are being promoted on the
basis of flimsy or non-existent "evidence"; countervailing evidence is suppressed; Mr.
Osmanagic runs a slick PR exercise and communicates his "results" directly to the press
rather than through genuine, scientific channels; critics of Mr. Osmanagic's enterprise are
met with political sloganeering rather than reasoned argument; Mr. Osmanagic is guided
by a powerful nationalist ideology, which distorts and corrupts his efforts (he says:
"Bosnia is a source of civilization of Europe and that is a reason enough that Bosnians should be proud of their heritage"); several archaeologists
are claimed to support the
project, when they are either not involved or actively oppose Mr. Osmanagic's destructive
efforts (e.g., Prof. Bruce Hitchner of Tufts University, USA; a signatory to this letter); the
whole enterprise is being run as a money-making exercise rather than a scientific
investigation; the academic credentials of many supporters are proudly proclaimed, when
those credentials have nothing to do with archaeology."
Here's the Deal:
If Osmanagic was representing the side of Truth then he should have no problem relenting control of an archaelogical review represented by UNESCO. I
understand that this is from furthest end of the spectrum of bias, but its claims are legitimate and reveal a side to Osmanagic that I had not even
considered at the start of the thread. As an actual scientist this letter sums up how I feel and I can sympathize with the frustration of those
combatting him.
The Truth:
HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST. TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE YOU A SCIENTIST. FINDING SOMETHING THEN EVALUATING IT'S WORTH IS WHAT ADVANCES
KNOWLEDGE. HE IS EVALUATING SOMETHING'S WORTH THEN GOING TO FIND IT.
Sorry for the all-caps, but as much intrigued as I initially was intrigued with this post I have fallen out of love and into contempt with his work.
It seems he actually destroying parts of the past instead of revealing it to the masses.
-Matt
PS I'm going on to make a thread about evaluation of claims and citing wikipedia as a reference after this. I've inspired myself to combat ignorance
and wikipedia one-liners even if they are valid. Whoever called it a straw-man attack...props!
edit on 21-11-2010 by TheChemist1 because: Grammar/Punctuation
edit on 21-11-2010 by TheChemist1 because: Word
Order
edit on 21-11-2010 by TheChemist1 because: Unnecessary abbreviation
edit on 21-11-2010 by TheChemist1 because:
Last one
S+F 
