VAULT DWELLERS SERVED

Friday, August 26, 2011

Science Fail

Just read this article through to the end and you tell me which is more likely :

1. Mayan rock sculptors "held their breaths" and moved masonry, materials and tools by the tons underwater so they could build in this cave when it was submerged during the supposed period the Mayans thrived from 200 A.D. to 900 A.D. and scienmajists claimed these structures were built?

2. These structures were built before the end of the last Ice Age and at that time were still far above sea level? No "breath holding" required to construct gigantic pyramids and statuary underground?

A good rule of thumb nowadays is ... if you hear it from a scienmajistical type, it's bullsh*t.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

And why is every significant structure built prior 500 bc a temple? An office? Nope, a temple. An art gallery? Nope, a temple. A palace? Maybe, but its probably a temple too.

It would seem that for post-modern, post-religious academia, all pre-moderns did was build temples and raise crops and livestock for offering to pagan gods.

'Religious' seems to be academic code for 'I have no ideas, but I won't get tenure if I say that'
-L

Anonymous said...

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/mobile/technology/science/Humans+immunity+boost+from+Neanderthals+study+finds/5312265/story.html

So, all of a sudden, it appears that Neanderthal genes are responsible for a significant chunk of our immune system...

-L

Solsys said...

Neanderthal sex boosted immunity in modern humans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14673047

Anonymous said...

And people like that clown are embedded in all our education institutions brainwashing our kids day after day to be one with the sheep. Mind you I had a good belly laugh at picturing Mayans duck diving and chiseling temples underwater in the dark of a cave. Can you imagine being one of his students listening to him spouting that crap in his class at Boston University.

Anonymous said...

Too true, It isn't only a lack of imagination, they go in with a narrow world-view and blinders on from the very start. Anyone else outside their field who points out the failures and stupidity is simply dismissed as a "layman" and ignored. Waking up is hard to do when taught an entire lifetime to stay asleep.

Texas Arcane said...

-L

Too true. I am so sick of hearing everything described as a "temple." It's scienmajistical shorthand for "We don't know what it is so we called it a temple."

It would be so much more interesting if academics told the truth. "It looks likely this was constructed before the last Ice Age and we don't know what exactly it was for. This is a very exciting time for South American archaeology and if anything we think funding for research should be increased because we don't know, not cut off because we admit we don't know. That would entail sane people being in charge of the funding, however."

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed this one Tex. Another example of the ass backwards thinking that is instituional. Something that is plainly obvious isn't even considered in favor of something bizarre and extreme.

@Anonymous 10:36

I've been wondering the same thing. How the heck do they know it is a temple every time? Anything that is bigger than what they think is a house in that area or they don't know what it was for is a 'temple'. People must have been spoiled for choice for temples to go to. An empty temple for every man alive. Even underwater ones for when he's taking a swim and decides to stop for a few minutes underwater to pray....

Texas Arcane said...

I could tell you several concrete examples, with names, where academics who suggested any window of time for these structures outside of the officially approved ones were immediately slashed of all funding, left high and dry and denied tenure their next semester. In one case, I know of an academic who was denied travel fare home from South America and was so disgusted they ended up settling there permanently to study these ruins without funding of any kind.

Anonymous said...

That sounds about right Tex. You need a carrot and stick to get all these people jumping through hoops to come to unnatural conclusions and all marching to the same beat. It doesn't happen naturally. If left to their own devices ten people will come up with ten opinions, at least.

Real science has more real debate. We only need to look at the generations past and the letters between scientists and sent to journals. Heated debates over years and trying to prove their side with reason and solid proof. Instead of that we have the PC accepted doctrine being photocopied and handed out and it is made very clear that it is unwelcome for any new ideas to be brought up or you will be named and shamed and tarred with the same brush as a 'racist' now. Bad enough for the ordinary guy, but an academic would be comitting suicide if he tried the same.

Stick to calling it a 'temple' and always whatever timeline and beliefs are the current socially acceptable ones (neanderthals were monkey men who had no technology or development to speak of, ate babies and forced sapiens to rape neanderthal women for kicks before giving up on life and dropping dead). Funding threats can give them the near 0power of life and death for the careers of all these people. What works for global warmthinkery can work with this too.

You would think that even the average public would notice something fishy about modern science. How can any fair oppositon appear when the balance and odds are tilted so far to one side and the risks of going against the norm means losing a job and being black balled? Then at the same time they'll demand that you get professors or similar to back up any claim, the very people who are too frightened to say otherwise or were cherry picked and promoted for their conformity.

If you do decide to tell any stories in more detail then I'm sure plenty here would love to hear them, if you can without risking or upsetting the people involved.

Anonymous said...

Tex et. al.

The drive for conformity is strong. To do any more than tinker around the edges and make incremental advances risks the wrath of the consensus. To incur the wrath of the consensus is to lose the the highest goals and most prized possessions of any professional: respectability and credibility. If no one takes you seriously, you starve. Having been through university as an undergrad and phD student, you know what starvation looks like, and you don't want to go back there. Ever.

The wise old men and women of the consensus are the gate-keepers to credibility, and they have built their careers on a certain paradigm. Unless your evidence that the old paradigm is above reproach (and even if it is) then you better not challenge it it too aggressively, at least until the old guys die or retire, and then you might be able to push forward a little bit more. Then you become an old guy, and need to defend your paradigm against the young guys, who tow the line because they like to eat.

Where's the incentive to take risks, to innovate, to make leaps in understanding? Only when there's a commercial incentive to do so. Which is why we can make video calls to the other side of the world from Star Trek-esq smart phone, but have no idea about our own supposedly temple-saturated history. Unless there's a commercial incentive to break the dominant paradigm, your hope of advancing knowledge would seem to be slim. Sad, really.

-L

Anonymous said...

Why do people rag on Tex for going off topic with posts? Think about it many of these posts are more on topic than another post about the increasing likelihood of world war III. Knowing that previous civilizations may existed before ours is sobering and makes survivalists see they are part of a chain of cycles ... each cycle demands something different but its always about pulling thru. It is not crazy its the same old. Its the people that think thrres somthing abnormal here who are abnormal. Since when is prepping abnormal au contrary.

www.000webhost.com