reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Ancient alien hypothesis does not meet any of the qualifications for a scientific theory.
I understand that. This is precisely why I have distinguished between two notions of science: One of them is the notion that science has heretofore
carried with it as it works. This is the notion with which you are working. The other is the "broad view" which I had described. I have offered this
notion as an alternative to the working scientific notion for a very specific reason, which you can find within my previous post.
Science is long overdue for a re-thinking of its assumptions, and this re-thinking is precisely what I am attempting to propagate here in my own way.
There is no need to fear this re-thinking. It is beneficial. Consider my points, consider whether science really has rejected certain kinds of
as evidence for no other reason than mere physicalist bias. Does it sound plausible? Does it not sound plausible?
Since when is "every experience" a form of evidence?
Any phenomenon witness is evidence. The question is only what it is evidence for and how it functions as evidence. My girl's caress is evidence of
her love for me. We can even use your question as an example. Your asking me "since when is 'every experience' a form of evidence?" can be
evidence of many things, among them: (1) a failure on my part to communicate my thoughts effectively (this is almost certainly the reality), (2) a
misunderstanding on your part of the meaning of the word "evidence" as I use it, (3) a misplaced categorization on your part of the qualification
"every experience", (4) a disconnect in our act of communication which prevents you from perceiving my worldview just as it may prevent me from
interacting with yours. The list goes on. These are all theories (or hypotheses, if you prefer) which can explain the specific piece of evidence (your
question to me). The best one will explain the evidence in the most coherent, simplest, and most useful
way. These standards, of course, are
only my standards for what makes a theory "good", but you will find that these standards have applied across the board in the history of theorizing
(the history of science included).
AAH rests largely on the layman's interpretation of various mythologies, the argument from ignorance (we don't know how they built this, therefore
it must have been aliens) and dismissing or ignoring actual evidence from various branches of science that study ancient cultures.
This is only because the theory is still crude and embryonic. I have already conceded that the narrow view of science would refer to it only as a
hypothesis (if even that).
In short, this is searching for evidence to support a preconceived notion (confirmation bias) rather than developing a hypothesis or theory from
Evidence does not occur in a vacuum. Every piece of evidence that is collected is collected with a bias already figured into it. This bias is what
categorizes that piece of evidence as
evidence in the first place. All experimental scientists are guilty of collecting evidence with the
intention that it will be relevant to a preconceived notion (a hypothesis). There are an infinite number of hypotheses which can fit any set of
evidence you care to imagine. This is because no set of evidence is complete, so the hypotheses can be allowed to vary along the dimensions of the
incompleteness of the evidence available. This entails that no one piece of evidence supports a single hypothesis, any given piece of evidence can
support myriad hypotheses. The reason that we take evidence to support one hypothesis or another is twofold: (1) we speak of many different hypotheses
as if they were but a single hypothesis, (2) we have used our own standards (remember my standards? simplicity, coherence, usefulness) to whittle down
the number of possible hypotheses to a single hypothesis or at least a small set of similar hypotheses.
Additionally, you're a bit off base in your assumption of what my "worldview" is
I meant to make no assumption, which is why I used the word "may". I am aware that I am not very familiar with your worldview, so I suggested a
worldview that you may (or may not) accept. It was only an example and it was not important to my point what your worldview really is.
Likewise, it's an insult to various ancient cultures to assume alien involvement in their mythologies and technological achievements. Regarding the
stories/mythologies here is a list of about 35 origin myths. The only thing any of them have in common is the notion of creation and none of them
discuss aliens. If you assert these all discuss aliens then you have a lot of squares to circle.
They don't mention aliens, but most of them mention gods. The point of the OP is that aliens may have been regarded either as gods or misinterpreted
as gods. It seems highly suspect that we have a mention of gods within so many different traditions, as if all of these cultures had the same concept
of a god. Besides, strictly speaking, mythical gods often are
aliens by the very admission of the myths themselves.
Furthermore, creation stories are only one possible area in which AAT can be explored. It may be that aliens were not
involved in our creating
involved in our evolution and cultural growth. Again, hypotheses proliferate especially since this hypothesis is still embryonic.
Back to the evidence favoring AAH. For one thing, to date, we have no evidence of life existing anywhere else but on earth - let alone sentient ET
life that can travel to earth. Secondly, we have no evidence of any artificial structures on earth that cannot be attributed to earth's inhabitants.
Thirdly, there are no alien artifacts present anywhere. So I'm kind of curious as to what all of this so-called evidence is...
In the first place, I'm not in the business of providing physical evidence. I am in the business of reformulating thought patterns and disseminating
In the second place, I have seen enough physical evidence that I am satisfied that certain forms of AAT (which I find very coherent, useful and
simple) are acceptable. However, the majority of the evidence that I have used in this personal judgment is not physical. I have gone over all this in
depth in my last post if you would like to know more.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
While you may be right that these myths were inspired by actual events, you're forgetting one major thing: many of these early civilizations used
psychedelic substances in their religious practices. We know that when having a psychedelic experience, many times the same archetypal images and
themes occur, regardless of the person or culture. In fact, one of these archetypal images that has occurred during many psychedelic experiences bears
a remarkable similarity to a Grey. So, isn't it more likely that these similar stories were inspired by the use of psychedelic substances, which we
know early civilizations took in a religious context, as opposed to them being visited by aliens, whose existence is not supported by any empirical
This depends on what you perceive the action of a drug to be. All evidence which comes in through the senses is considered empirical evidence. As I
have mentioned in my previous post, I have reason to think that it is high time that we accept that there are other forms of empirical evidence
besides the five senses (such as emotions, thoughts, and pranic flow), however you may not accept this notion. Nevertheless, even in the case of
someone who has taken a psychedelic, much of what is perceived is perceived through the sense organs, which means that the experience is very much
empirical, regardless of whether anyone else saw it.
While there are those who believe that psychedelics and other similar drugs generate
experiences, this is only an assumption which lacks any
basis in the evidence on hand. The evidence only suggests that experience changes when psychedelics are consumed. This may mean that the psychedelics
generated the experience, but it may also mean that the psychedelics merely changed the function of the sense organs. It may be that you see
different things on psychedelics because your eyes are adjusted to picking up different aspects of the world in which you live than they did before
you ingested the drug.
In short, I have no problem with this even if it is true, because no phenomenon trumps any other phenomenon, they must all be explained within the
context of a theory that describes how the phenomena function together in order that the phenomena may be put to use.
You may have no respect for psychedelics, but I know people whose lives have been changed by them (for the better). And many of these people have long
since stopped using psychedelics.