It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PriamsPride
My friend, this is incorrect. The first mention of the word "science" or "scientific" within this thread was actually made by Titen-Sxull toward the end of the first page. SquirrelNutz also didn't use the word "proof" in his OP. Therefore, I believe that this thread was moved OUT of its original context INTO the context of science. So I see myself as attempting to RE-rail the conversation because it has become severely DE-railed.
Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
"Only" - Now, AS the basis for all other religions AND as the only theory that continually produces new evidence to support its claims while at the same time providing scientific explanations for many of the fantastical claims of events and entities of religious txts, it can be the only belief system (with any backing).
This is precisely why I make no firm distinction between science and philosophy. The borders are blurred, much to the chagrin of scientists.
science: A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability.
philosophy: An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism.
There is no difference between the usefulness of a theory and the accuracy of a theory. If a theory ceases to be useful, then it is no longer accurate.
Usefulness is far more than just engineering and technological applications, usefulness can also be found in our ability to use theories to build our own personal worldviews.
I have ceased, for example, to find the Catholic Christian theory of the universe useful. I find that it does not appreciate the function that rules serve within my experience. Rules, in my experience, are rules of thumb. They all have exceptions and they are only invented in order to increase efficiency of action. However, the Catholic worldview takes rules as absolute. Therefore, I have found evidence that this theory is no longer useful, so I have discarded it. You may say that the theory is not accurate, but really accuracy is indistinguishable from usefulness.
I'm glad you mentioned this. In the first place, all phenomena are observable -- otherwise they wouldn't be phenomena. But there are some phenomena for which science has no convincing answers. It is typically assumed that human beings have five senses. These are, of course, the physical senses. But what about those human beings who claim that they can detect the movement of prana (or chi) within and around their bodies? What about human beings who claim they can see auras? What about human beings who can sense the emotions of others?
These phenomena are distinctly observable, but they are also non-physical. The path that science has taken in the explanation of these phenomena has typically been thus: deviations in body chemistry caused an experience of realms of existence which are not "really there". Not only does this kind of physicalist reduction have no respect for the fact that these phenomena are both consistent and observable (among those who have developed the ability to observe them), but it has no respect for the possibility that the physical interactions which tag along with these phenomena during tests might be effects rather than causes. Furthermore, this perspective assumes that it has a firm grasp on what is or is not "really there".
Oh yes! Much more complex! All that geneticists need to look at is DNA strands. DNA strands may have infinite variability but there are only a few variables which can vary infinitely. There are only four different nucleotides which constitute DNA, so there are really only two infinite variables: (1) length of DNA, (2) combination of nucleotides. Think of DNA as if it were a quaternary language (as opposed to the binary language that computers use). This is really a very simple system, even though it can produce enormously variable results.
Quantum mechanics is even MORE simple. It deals only with a few tiny particles whose features are very basic. You have spin, charge, velocity, location. As it has been famously said, "electrons have no hair". They have no features which distinguish them from each other except these few properties. This makes the data that you are dealing with extremely simple, even though the results are complex.
Now consider anthropological data. Any one piece of data has numerous different levels on which it can vary. Let's just consider an ancient pot with writing on it.
Where was the pot found? What is it made of? Were the materials available in the area it was found? Maybe it was transported to get there. What was written on it? Has the writing been rubbed off? What does the writing say? Can we even understand the writing without understanding the cultural background in which the writing occurred? Perhaps calligraphy was meaningful to this civilization in a way that it is not today. Maybe it's not a pot. Maybe it's a helmet.
Well I don't fully agree with these more minute points within the OP.
Ancient alien hypothesis does not meet any of the qualifications for a scientific theory.
Since when is "every experience" a form of evidence?
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.
In short, this is searching for evidence to support a preconceived notion (confirmation bias) rather than developing a hypothesis or theory from actual evidence.
Additionally, you're a bit off base in your assumption of what my "worldview" 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.
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...
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 evidence?
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 am in the business of reformulating thought patterns and disseminating these reformulations.
Friend, you are very much welcome to your view of the world.
In my view of the world all things are connected, which makes virtually everything relevant to virtually everything else.
What has not yet been said is what specific emotions, thought patterns, thoughts and other phenomena stand as evidence for AAT. This has not been said because it is very difficult to say. It involves a great deal of work to guide another's mind down your own emotions, thoughts and thought patterns.
This is why I do not answer your question. It is not yet time within the context of the discussion, though I am quite certain that the discussion will never get to that point within this thread.
May light be with you, friend.
I may have completely missed the point in what you were saying
at first glance your statement seemed ludicrous
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 evidence?
Originally posted by bloodgame
Why does there have to be a religion at all?
Does anybody actually get anything except false belief from religion?