Yes and I mentioned how despite the claim that this is old news and the narrative is more open to alternative ideas in reality its not. By the fact that the same basis that originally created the narrative is still being pushed to destinguish the mere suggestion of alternative ideas before they are investigated.
A similar thing is happening in evolution where alternative evidence and ideas are being claimed as already incorporated into the changing synthesis. While at the same time in reality still basically pushing the same old ideas in practice. Or in dismissing alternative explanations. The same with physics. Any alternative ontology beyond the material one is automatically regarded as psudoscience.
The same thing when people automatically say this is about creationism or conspiracy theories. In practice the language and narrative is still basically the same. Thats understandable. Because ultimately this is about two different worldviews on reality. Those who do not believe in a non material ontology will always regard any alternative as Woo and the language will reflect this.
They will say the allow for alternative ideas so long as they fit the worldview. As soon as you get into it then its a matter of belief and not science. But still those with a material ontology will use that to dismiss alternative views as though holding the more truthful position.
I did not make any personal comments on the OP. JUst asked what others thought. The idea of it being or inviting conspiracy was implied by others. That opened the gate. Instead of perhaps 'what did the video mean by X or Y'. Or is the author pushing conspiracies. That opens up to investigation rather than pushing a personal view of what it represented.
But then I am not really too worried that this happened as I know it is something that will come up sooner or later. Just not as soon as I thought. Perhaps I was not prepared enough and could have directed things better.
But I know I certainly was not intending the level of how the thread exploded into conspiracies lol. Like I said within days it was full of comments for many people. In some ways you are right in that we already have the weight of past conspiracies causing people to be very skeptical. But still that is no reason to assume.
No this is a general simple and reasonable common sense statement. Nothing in that is controversial. It is a well recognised and common general view. I gave no specific as to aliens, creationism, magic ect.
Look what I said, the possibility that human knowledge was more advanced in our history that we realised or gave credit for. That the amazing works we see may be evidence for this.
Nothing in that speaks conspiracy itself. I have not injected into that space aliens or creationism and in fact have tried to ground it in ideas like Indigenous knowledge which is a well recognised alternative knowledge. Or in the specific examples of advanced knowledge and tech.
I don't think its a straight forward as your rendition. For example GT was mentioned as an anomely in the historical records relatively recent in mainstream circles. Its not necessarily when these sites are discovered but the accumulative evidence which may cause the existing perspectives on the evidence to create a new hypothesis. Like any science.
That this issue of alternative histories is coming up generally in society more today than ever is itself part of the changing view of human history. That we have more access to alternative views of knowledge is what is fueling people to question the narratives of human knowledge and history.
This is a far bigger issue as far as the epistemics and metaphysics are concerned I think.
This article was written only 2 years ago speaking of the mainstream or establish historical view and its not from a religious or conspiracy site.
The civilisation myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history
In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. We need to rethink the story of this monumental transition
www.newscientist.com
Ok I will have to go back and find this and respond. Ok fair enough, you see the word 'mainstream' as code for conspiracy. I don't. I see it as a common term used in many applications that is well acceptable.
As far as mentioning megaliths and lost civilizations I am not sure I meant it as you would have seen this. When we talk about past knowledge and tech one of the most obvious ways to test this is with the only real visible and most obvious way that is left on the ground.
Its like a self fullfilling follow on evidence. If you want to show there was advanced knowledge then the only thing science can check is the empiricle evidence. Which just happens to be what we can see which has lasted through time (the megaliths and hard stone evidence).
But then thanks to modern tech we can now find other ways such as Lidar and GPR ect which is also revealing some surprising finds Or the engineering tests on these objects.
As I mentioned the topic of specific examples in the ground and especially Egyptian is a natural follow on to claiming there was some sort of advanced knowledge in the past. I am not surpised. But the same kind of signatures are seen all over the world.
Its the accumulation of all these out of place evidence that is fueling the speculation that there was some sort of advanced society that achieved a great level of tech and knowledge that is hard to explain with the conventional narratives. Even the updated ones.
Yes and I mentioned that despite this its still an overall worldview. I mentioned how in recent years despite the recognition that GT is old news that it had become in the mainstream again. Perhaps due to a rise in other discoveries and the recent work on astronomy on the glyphs. The same old worldviews were being mentioned again as recent as 10 years ago or less.
In fact here is an article from 2 years ago talking about how discoveries like GT are causing mainstream views on our history to change. I think perhaps now it has moved beyond realising that our history is throwing up some anomelies in the narrative. Its now becoming a matter of metaphysics and not the evidence. The accumulative evidence is causing people to question knowledge itself.
Yes that was not even in my mind lol. In fact why would I be suggesting a longer history for human knowledge that stretches back 100s of 1,00s of years lol. There goes the 6 or 7,000 year old creationist entire belief lol. But I get the connection as once again words have more than one meaning depending on the perspective and the year 6,000 seems to come with a lot of baggage.
Lol. Maybe this is true. Though I did not intend that. Like I said I have come to realise that discussing such topics is near impossible unless I guess there was some formal debate and conditions.
Anyway. I stayed right away from Atlantis and all that. You or someone else brought that in. Still I don't care as like you said it may be inevitable. But I did destinguish that all these ideas, stories and legends are loosely based on some true event and then elaborated. So I acknowledged the destinction and was not promoting conspiracies.
Thats really part of the problem. To be able to discuss even conspiracies to not them out and see what is fake and what may have some basis. I think that is the real problem, the fact that theres no way to formerly referee how the evidence is established without all the conflation.
Fair enough and this was a natural part of a thread like this. In some ways I wish that we could even go into this in more detail to see whether theres any basis. Not for some magical city. But that there was some great city that was perhaps the pinnacle of the great megaliths we see and then something happened that it disappeared in a relatively short time.
Usually this is how these legends are evolved. It would be interesting to see if there is any evidence for this on the ground. But unfortunately I feel that it would be hard once again without some formal way of establishing the rules of epistemics. As even clear evidence can be conflated.
Why, though. What is it about misdated megaliths that make it not a possibility. Remembering that sometimes its the accumulation of evidence ie we know pharoahs usurped or repurposed old stuff, we have evdience of it, we see the difference in signatures in that the clear signatures old the old stuff looks more or less the exact same as some of the stuff being claimed as new stuff.
Its not to say that this specific works is old or new. But to say 'hey wait a minute lets not be so fast in attributing this to the new and lets do some further investigation. Its the inistence no matter what that whatever is found at a new site or stamped with a name is the result of that site or name.
You percieved I was trying to sneak in some pseudo-history. My language does not speak of promoting any conspiracy. In fact twice bitten 10 times shy. I know what that does to a thread lol. Thats the worst thing I could do if I wanted to get to the bottom of things and be taken seriously.
To a desgree I agree that these types of topics are rife with conflations and its easy to slip into on both sides. Perhaps this is the nature of such threads. But its fun anyway lol.
As I mentioned earlier in some ways that we are now discussing the epistemics, perspectives of how we each see what has been said is itself on topic of the OP. Because this is philsophy and metaphysics. How the evidence is seen, what is evidence and conspiracy.
link.springer.com
