My recent favorite is anthropology ignoring all evidence of women hunting because it didn’t fit social morals of the researchers.
Comment on We lost Keanu
slickgoat@lemmy.world 2 months agoDon’t have a boat in this race, but banning him from otherwise open historical sites because they don’t like his ideas is not scientific, but more like the mediaeval Catholic church.
Science is full of bigoted thinking as any other discipline. If you don’t already know this, you have never met a scientist.
Having said all that, it is a silly idea, but I enjoy the incidental geology that he employs to illustrate his argument. Not that I buy into the argument itself.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 months ago
slickgoat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That’s a good example. Another is from my country, Australia. The idea that the Aborigines were just nomad hunter gatherers was seriously upset by the discovered fish farming settlements in the north of the country as well as the remains of basic stone buildings. Settler farmers have been destroying the evidence of these artifacts for 150 years because they upset the politics of “peaceful European settlement”.
servobobo@feddit.nl 2 months ago
Quacks get banned/shunned because they’re usually obnoxious and abusive, not because they hold fringe ideas. If it was only the latter they’d fit right in in most fields.
slickgoat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You will have to point out where he was obnoxious or abusive. I’ve not seen either of these traits from watching the show.
Cataphract@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Well of course you’re not going to see anything negative on a show recorded and produced by the person you’re talking about. Historical sites aren’t just about the infrastructure/items, it’s about honoring the memories and past lives/accomplishments of our ancestors. In regards to the “snake” banning, that site already was embarrassed by a previous recording of ancient aliens, and historical sites have learned not to let organizations and promoters take over and misrepresent the cause and importance of those sites. From my understand they don’t even let in people like NPR, they are there as an educational resource and not to be hijacked as proof for a theory they don’t represent.
Now if it was an actual scientist working on a scientific research paper? Sure, be outraged. A guy trying to film a show looking for evidence to prove a hypothesis? (not how the scientific method works) Completely delusional to get upset about it.
slickgoat@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Very good explanation, and I respect your point of view.
Even with that in hand, scientists can still be sometimes too precious. Being the official and truth holder of all things can also keep gifted amateurs out of the running. I’m not anti-science, I’m a fan. There is a long history of professionals jealousy guarding a patch that is not necessarily always ethical.
Anyway, that is the exception.