gnidrologs (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnidrologs) rakstīja,@ 2022-12-03 08:57:00 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
I think the details of history can obscure the bigger picture here, which is that the current understanding of the modern scientific establishment is that humanity has gone through a more or less steady linear progression from total ooga-booga to increasingly more complex, sophisticated and evolved societies and this conception is not negotiable. Their problem with some of those alternative history scenarios is not so much that they dislike how the evidence for stuff like dates etc is being challenged, but that the very idea of something like an advanced civilization existing in an era in which according to the progressivist narrative humanity was just rising out of their ooga-booga caves or what have you throws a monkey wrench in the entire foundation of the progressivist myth.
There's no question that many of those involved in the alternative history camp are mostly amateurs where as the scientific establishment can boast actual experts not to mention a direct access to the materials and resources necessary for a proper investigation, but the mistrust some people place on said establishment is not based on a presumed lack of competence or extertise, but the existence of this inflexible modernist credo which rejects even the possibility of what some of those alternative history people are suggesting a priori, reguardless of the evidence. Now sure the reverse is also true given that the desire to BELIEVE is strong among any community of alternative "thinkers", but the fact remains that modern researchers are not free from bias either and they too have their own axe to grind.
There's no question that many of those involved in the alternative history camp are mostly amateurs where as the scientific establishment can boast actual experts not to mention a direct access to the materials and resources necessary for a proper investigation, but the mistrust some people place on said establishment is not based on a presumed lack of competence or extertise, but the existence of this inflexible modernist credo which rejects even the possibility of what some of those alternative history people are suggesting a priori, reguardless of the evidence. Now sure the reverse is also true given that the desire to BELIEVE is strong among any community of alternative "thinkers", but the fact remains that modern researchers are not free from bias either and they too have their own axe to grind.
Nopūsties:
