There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw said:

Listen to all these experts who themselves provide no peer review. Talk about Woo. Double standards and bias proving my point that this was a lynch job from the start.

This whole thread has been turned into one big logical fallacy of ad hominems one after the other lol.

Click to expand...

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

stevevw said:

Where is this quote. I cannot find it.

Click to expand...

It's in the paragraph before the Results section.

I especially like the sudden introduction of a specific frequency, at best there some are some serious language problems going on, at worst it is gobbledegook.

Note, the paper is not peer-reviewed, and it is self-published. What peer-reviewed articles deal with acoustic properties of Egyptian pyramids and free energy? You alluded that they exist.

I've only been invited to peer-review papers in predatory journals and I have better use for my time and my field is not archeology or physics.
So I can't show you any articles I am currently reviewing, and I wouldn't be allowed either.

This thread REALLY has gone down the pseudo-science rabbithole unrepentantly.

I'm bouncing. Good luck to all staying behind.

Hans Blaster said:

My peer review documents are confidential and in XXX ZZZ physics, not archeology, so they aren't the documents you want.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they are interesting. Mine are not and very few and have to do with learning vocational skills--not a subject which Steve is interested in. Maybe he should read my MA thesis. That would put him in a very, very small but select group.

stevevw said:

This is a fact inherent in methodlogical naturalism. You literally just did it in your first point lol. Material science cannot account for spirituality. To then enforce onto spirituality material science in saying its all rejected as nothing is ignoring spirituality as something real.

Click to expand...

Here's a story for you:

Many years ago when acupuncture started to become trendy the American Medical Association sent a team of (methodological naturalist) doctors over to China to work with traditional Chinese healers to see if there was anything in it. When they returned they reported that

1. Acupuncture was actually effective in many (though not all) cases as claimed.
2. The traditional explanation for its effectiveness, Qi energy channels, yin & yang, etc. was all post hoc moonshine.
3. They had discovered two new useful acupuncture points previously unknown to traditional Chinese medicine.

What do you make of that?

Here's another:

I worked for a while in a small island nation .The natives cultivated a plant, unique to those islands, which had medicinal properties. Of course the existence and use of the plant was surrounded with a traditional spiritual framework, but the important thing was that it worked. While I was there the plant came to the attention of (methodolically naturalist) Western medicine. The main concern of the Islanders was not that their spiritual framework would be dismissed, but whether or not they would get royalties from pharma companies.

BCP1928 said:

Many years ago when acupuncture started to become trendy the American Medical Association sent a team of (methodological naturalist) doctors over to China to work with traditional Chinese healers to see if there was anything in it. When they returned they reported that

1. Acupuncture was actually effective in many (though not all) cases as claimed.
2. The traditional explanation for its effectiveness, Qi energy channels, yin & yang, etc. was all post hoc moonshine.
3. They had discovered two new useful acupuncture points previously unknown to traditional Chinese medicine.

What do you make of that?

Click to expand...

Many of these "new techniques" were pushed hard on us.

The New Age gurus wanted desperately to get scientific accreditation for their practices.

That way they could get government subsidization for their nonsense.

Here's one example from AI Overview:

The American Psychological Association (APA) was founded in 1892 with the explicit goal of "the advancement of psychology as a science," meaning it was established to formally recognize and promote psychology in a scientific manner from its inception. However, the official goal wasn't formally established until 1906, and a major reorganization in 1945 solidified the integration of applied and academic psychology, further demonstrating psychology's scientific standing.