Addressing Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudojournalism, Pseudoscholarship, and Pseudoscience

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“Maybe” is the conspiracy theorist’s bread and butter. It takes no specialized knowledge or experience to use it. You can apply the “Maybe” attack to anything. No matter how accurate, accepted, or proven something is. “Maybe” allows mistrust without requiring even a reason for the mistrust. The “Maybe” attack challenge may use other related words Perhaps…, Did…, I believe…, What if…, Who really…, Was the…, “Some say …” or phrases such as When was it really, How old is it actually, We will never know but maybe it was…, It is not impossible that…, We don’t know so it could be…, It may have been… anything is possible, Etc. “Alternative history/Pseudo-history” of the gaps fallacy = “an argument from ignorance” (also called the gaps fallacy: such as “claims that something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or that something is false because it hasn’t been proven true”) happens. Still, more often, “alternative-history”/”pseudo-history” are forms of scientific, archaeological, and/or historical distortions/false narratives in place of mainstream accounts.

Reason over an appeal to conspiracy thinking. Failure to accept some salient confirmed facts of reality, as explained in the sciences, is to accept the attached title of denialist. Facts should lead to your beliefs, not your beliefs leading to your facts. Pseudoscholarship, Pseudoscience, Pseudoarchaeology, and/or Pseudohistory often have a contemporary agenda distorting or misrepresenting the evidence or historical record and rely on “Maybe/What if” attacks or on unreliable sources like taking as real myths and legends, while ignoring contradictory evidence or reason. For instance, Pseudoarchaeology/Alternative-history conspiracy theorists often attack what they label “mainstream” archaeologists/historians, accusing them of not sharing all the knowledge known, or intentionally covering up evidence that challenges established archaeological/historical narratives. These Pseudoarchaeology/Alternative-history conspiracy theorists frequently propose unproven and speculative claims about things like extraterrestrial influence, extremely early advanced ancient civilizations with lost knowledge, globe-spanning advanced ancient civilizations teaching inferiors, or lost continents like Atlantis. Pseudothinkers don’t stop making up every conspiracy just because the evidence supports the mainstream scientific view and the lines of evidence that support the scientific views.

No, the Olmec heads are not African; they represent the indigenous people of Mesoamerica.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Science and Philosophy work together.

“Archaeology isn’t science because you didn’t witness history happen”, “Physics isn’t science because you didn’t witness sub-atomic particles” “Biology isn’t science because you didn’t witness the bacteria attack your liver”, and “Chemistry isn’t science bec….” – Archaeologist Bill Farley, Some Guy™ @ArchaeologyGame Twitter LINK

My response, Archaeology is science!

Bioarchaeologist Scott D. Haddow @sdhaddow, “Not every archaeologist uses science in their research and that’s ok.”

“100% true and correct. I don’t think this makes archaeology not a science though. It is a malleable approach that allows for many perspectives, which is a good thing.” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Michea B, reverend of the gender theocracy @TheMicheaB, “I love that my brain processed the last sentence ending like that not due to character limits, but due to them doing something so absurdly foolish while trying to prove it isn’t science that they caused an explosion.”

“Hah, yes I had enough characters left that I could have done a whole other snarky science. Maybe “astronomy isn’t science because you didn’t actually step on Venus” or something.” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Jeff Seibert @teengenerate_08, “I get your argument 100%. I often point out in my work (with civil engineers) that archaeology isn’t science per se because the predictive modeling isn’t that great… mostly so they stop asking me “what’s out there” in un surveyed areas hahaha.”

“:( I hope there’s more to the science of archaeology than predictive modeling. Though I did have a several hours long beer-soaked convo with two CRM archaeo friends just last week about predictive modeling lol” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Emily B. K. @MobyJane, “These people will happily attack all historical and observational sciences for not being “experimental,” as if botany and anatomy don’t count either.”

“And archaeology literally is experimental sometimes! We’ve got a whole subdiscipline for it!” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Hodgepodge Henry @hodgepodgehenry, “I always explained the archaeology I was involved with as a student was science adjacent. Uses science, had to learn the philosophy of science, but not the same as what my friends were learning who were studying chemistry, physics etc. But some of that is the difference between UK and US degrees.”

“I’m not of the opinion that archaeology is a science and only a science. I think it’s actually perfectly situated at the intersection of social science, bench science, and humanity. When critics say archaeology isn’t a science, what they mean is they don’t think. That we do work of any value and that everything we do is at best guesswork, and at worst intentional “woke” narrative building. And also I just think the logical fallacy that I mention in this tweet is funny. Like… they remember vaguely hearing in high school how science is about observation, and thus believe you must literally be able to see something with your pathetic human eye balls to do science.” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Hodgepodge Henry @hodgepodgehenry, “Ah sorry yes. Yes, people like that haven’t much developed their thinking since they were children.”

“It’s a hard balance to strike in defending the discipline. Defending the discipline at all sometimes seems ridiculous when there’s so much to criticize. The science part is tricky becouse to the general public science can just mean like.. true or systemic. Not “political.” – Archaeologist Bill Farley

Addressing Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudojournalism, Pseudoscholarship, and Pseudoscience (VIDEO)

John Hoopes (Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas), who Graham Hancock thinks is “the most vehement and insulting of all archaeologists” and I think is great, addresses Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience

I get likes and shares, even some support/promotion from Archaeologists or Anthropologists, even though I am neither an academic nor am I a historian, archaeologist, or anthropologist. I am “self-trained”, starting in 2006 when I turned atheist in college at 35. Archaeologists or Anthropologists also like me, even though I express my speculation on prehistory, including archaeology/anthropology. The why is I have good/reasoned speculations, and heavily support them with lots of valid evidence from several different sources on average as I value true.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Maybe a Free Thinker but not a Critical One: High Conspiracy Belief is Associated with Low Critical Thinking Ability

“Critical thinking is of paramount importance in our society. People regularly assume that critical thinking is a way to reduce conspiracy belief, although the relationship between critical thinking and conspiracy belief has never been tested. We conducted two studies (Study 1, N = 86; Study 2, N = 252), in which we found that critical thinking ability—measured by an open‐ended test emphasizing several areas of critical thinking ability in the context of argumentation—is negatively associated with belief in conspiracy theories. Additionally, we did not find a significant relationship between self‐reported (subjective) critical thinking ability and conspiracy belief. Our results support the idea that conspiracy believers have less developed critical thinking ability and stimulate discussion about the possibility of reducing conspiracy beliefs via the development of critical thinking.” ref 

Critical Thinking and Academic Research

Scientific Retractions?

“More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.” ref

“Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.” ref

Are retractions becoming more frequent? 

“Overall, manuscript retraction appears to be occurring more frequently, although it is uncertain whether this is a result of increasing misconduct or simply increasing detection due to enhanced vigilance. Steen reviewed 742 retracted articles and found that the number of retracted articles has risen approximately 10-fold over the past decade, with the greatest increase among those retracted due to misconduct. Although errors certainly account for the greatest proportion of retracted articles, Steen has argued that many retractions are a consequence of deliberate attempts by an author to deceive. Most scientists feel that research misconduct is uncommon. However, a meta-analysis of survey data reported that 2% of scientists report having committed serious research misconduct at least once, and one-third admit to having engaged in questionable research practices. Given the stigma associated with retractions and the challenges in detecting misconduct, it is likely that retractions represent only the tip of the iceberg.” ref

Retraction: Geo-Archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia

“Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, Andang Bachtiar, Bagus Endar B. Nurhandoko, Ali Akbar, Pon Purajatnika, Mudrik R. Daryono, Dadan D. Wardhana, Andri S. Subandriyo, Andi Krisyunianto, Tagyuddin, Budianto Ontowiryo, Yusuf Maulana. Archaeological Prospection, 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1912). The above article, published online on 20 October 2023 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editors-in-Chief, Eileen Ernenwein, and Gregory Tsokas, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Following publication of this article, concerns were raised by third parties with expertise in geophysics, archaeology, and radiocarbon dating, about the conclusions drawn by the authors based on the evidence reported. The publisher and the Co-Editors-in-Chief have investigated these concerns and have concluded that the article contains a major error. This error, which was not identified during peer review, is that the radiocarbon dating was applied to soil samples that were not associated with any artifacts or features that could be reliably interpreted as anthropogenic or “man-made.” Therefore, the interpretation that the site is an ancient pyramid built 9000 or more years ago is incorrect, and the article must be retracted. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja responded on behalf of the authors, all of whom disagree with the retraction.” ref

Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers

Other-retraction and Self-retraction

“In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which a published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that their results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public. A retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions are typically accompanied by a retraction notice written by the editors or authors explaining the reason for the retraction. Such notices may also include a note from the authors with apologies for the previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author. Retractions must not be confused with small corrections in published articles.” ref

“There have been numerous examples of retracted scientific publications. Retraction Watch provides updates on new retractions, and discusses general issues in relation to retractions. A low percentage of retracted papers can be due to unintentional error within the author(s) work. Rather than removing the entire article, retraction with replacement has been a new practice to help authors avoid being seen as dishonest for mistakes that were not purposefully done. This method allows the author to fix their mistakes from the original paper, and submit an edited version to take the original paper’s place. The journal can decide to retract the original paper then upload the fixed version online, usually with a notice placed stating “Retraction and Replacement,” or “Correction,” on the article page. For example, JAMA will post the edited version with a retraction and replacement notice, along with a link to the original article, while Research Evaluation will use the term “correction” with a link posted on the updated article, referring to the old article.” ref

“Self-retraction is a request from an author and/or co-authors to retract its own work from being published. Self-retraction by an author is recommended because once it gets retracted from the journal, then it can affect the author(s) because investigations can begin which will have an effect the author’s reputation. If one retracts their own work on their terms, it would show more integrity and honesty as they are owning up to their own mistakes, just like the authors mentioned in The Wall Street Journal have done . Scientists at times have been asked to retract their work even though their work is exact and bold; the root cause of the problem should be looked into to avoid retractions. A system to distinguish papers from “good” and “bad” would be beneficial to researchers. This system may save the reputation of scientists and researchers. Most researchers publish honest work and sometimes simple mistakes happen to be overlooked by the peer review process. Retraction should not be for simple spelling errors, but for inaccurate, skewed, and fraudulent data. For example, today new technologies are being developed in a culture of transparency to align the opportunity to record false claims. Another solution is for researchers to use a term “self-citation” since citations look identical therefore they are classified in databases. Recommending a same database to evaluate the researchers own work can help lessen retractions.” ref

Pre- and Post- publication Peer Review? 

“The process of peer review is not restricted to the publication process managed by academic journals. In particular, some forms of peer review can occur before an article is submitted to a journal and/or after it is published by the journal.” ref

Pre-publication Peer Review

“Manuscripts are typically reviewed by colleagues before submission, and if the manuscript is uploaded to preprint servers, such as ArXiv, BioRxiv or SSRN, researchers can read and comment on the manuscript. The practice to upload to preprint servers, and the activity of discussion heavily depend on the field, and it allows an open pre-publication peer review. The advantage of this method is speed and transparency of the review process. Anyone can give feedback, typically in form of comments, and typically not anonymously. These comments are also public, and can be responded to, therefore author-reviewer communication is not restricted to the typical 2–4 rounds of exchanges in traditional publishing. The authors can incorporate comments from a wide range of people instead of feedback from the typically 3–4 reviewers. The disadvantage is that a far larger number of papers are presented to the community without any guarantee on quality.” ref

Post-publication Peer Review

“After a manuscript is published, the process of peer review continues as publications are read, known as post-publication peer review. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all “peers” may offer review and critique of published literature. The introduction of the “epub ahead of print” practice in many journals has made possible the simultaneous publication of unsolicited letters to the editor together with the original paper in the print issue. A variation on this theme is open peer commentary, in which commentaries from specialists are solicited on published articles, and the authors are invited to respond.” ref

“Journals using this process solicit and publish non-anonymous commentaries on the “target paper” together with the paper, and with original authors’ reply as a matter of course. Open peer commentary was first implemented by the anthropologist Sol Tax, who founded the journal Current Anthropology in 1957. The journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, was founded by Stevan Harnad in 1978 and modeled on Current Anthropology‘s open peer commentary feature. Psycoloquy (1990–2002) was based on the same feature, but this time implemented online. Since 2016 open peer commentary is also provided by the journal Animal Sentience.” ref

“In addition to journals hosting their own articles’ reviews, there are also external, independent websites dedicated to post-publication peer-review, such as PubPeer which allows anonymous commenting of published literature and pushes authors to answer these comments. It has been suggested that post-publication reviews from these sites should be editorially considered as well. The megajournals F1000Research and ScienceOpen publish openly both the identity of the reviewers and the reviewer’s report alongside the article. Some journals use post-publication peer review as formal review method, instead of pre-publication review. This was first introduced in 2001, by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). More recently F1000Research, Qeios, and ScienceOpen were launched as megajournals with post-publication review as formal review method. At ACP, F1000Research, and Qeios peer reviewers are formally invited, much like at pre-publication review journals. Articles that pass peer review at those three journals are included in external scholarly databases.” ref

“In 2006, a small group of UK academic psychologists launched Philica, the instant online journal Journal of Everything, to redress many of what they saw as the problems of traditional peer review. All submitted articles are published immediately and may be reviewed afterwards. Any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so, and reviews are anonymous. Reviews are displayed at the end of each article, and are used to give the reader criticism or guidance about the work, rather than to decide whether it is published or not. This means that reviewers cannot suppress ideas if they disagree with them. Readers use reviews to guide their reading, and particularly popular or unpopular work is easy to identify.” ref

Social Media and informal Peer Review

“Recent research has called attention to the use of social media technologies and science blogs as a means of informal, post-publication peer review, as in the case of the #arseniclife (or GFAJ-1) controversy. In December 2010, an article published in Scienceexpress (the ahead-of-print version of Science) generated both excitement and skepticism, as its authors – led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon – claimed to have discovered and cultured a certain bacteria that could replace phosphorus with arsenic in its physiological building blocks. At the time of the article’s publication, NASA issued press statements suggesting that the finding would impact the search for extraterrestrial life, sparking excitement on Twitter under the hashtag #arseniclife, as well as criticism from fellow experts who voiced skepticism via their personal blogs. Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the article attracted media attention, and one of the most vocal scientific critics – Rosemary Redfield – formally published in July 2012 regarding her and her colleagues’ unsuccessful attempt to replicate the NASA scientists’ original findings.” ref

“Researchers following the impact of the #arseniclife case on social media discussions and peer review processes concluded the following:

Our results indicate that interactive online communication technologies can enable members in the broader scientific community to perform the role of journal reviewers to legitimize scientific information after it has advanced through formal review channels. In addition, a variety of audiences can attend to scientific controversies through these technologies and observe an informal process of post-publication peer review. (p 946)” ref

Peer Review and Trust

“Researchers have peer-reviewed manuscripts prior to publishing them in a variety of ways since the 18th century. The main goal of this practice is to improve the relevance and accuracy of scientific discussions. Even though experts often criticize peer review for a number of reasons, the process is still often considered the “gold standard” of science. Occasionally, however, peer review approves studies that are later found to be wrong, and rarely deceptive or fraudulent results are discovered prior to publication. Thus, there seems to be an element of discord between the ideology behind and the practice of peer review. By failing to effectively communicate that peer review is imperfect, the message conveyed to the wider public is that studies published in peer-reviewed journals are “true” and that peer review protects the literature from flawed science. A number of well-established criticisms exist of many elements of peer review. In the following we describe cases of the wider impact inappropriate peer review can have on public understanding of scientific literature.” ref

“Multiple examples across several areas of science find that scientists elevated the importance of peer review for research that was questionable or corrupted. For example, climate change deniers have published studies in the Energy and Environment journal, attempting to undermine the body of research that shows how human activity impacts the Earth’s climate. Politicians in the United States who reject the established science of climate change have then cited this journal on several occasions in speeches and reports. At times, peer review has been exposed as a process that was orchestrated for a preconceived outcome. The New York Times gained access to confidential peer review documents for studies sponsored by the National Football League (NFL) that were cited as scientific evidence that brain injuries do not cause long-term harm to its players.” ref

“During the peer review process, the authors of the study stated that all NFL players were part of a study, a claim that the reporters found to be false by examining the database used for the research. Furthermore, The Times noted that the NFL sought to legitimize the studies” methods and conclusion by citing a “rigorous, confidential peer-review process” despite evidence that some peer reviewers seemed “desperate” to stop their publication. Recent research has also demonstrated that widespread industry funding for published medical research often goes undeclared and that such conflicts of interest are not appropriately addressed by peer review. Conflict of interest is less likely to be picked up in double-blinded reviews since the reviewer does not know the identity of the authors.” ref

“Another problem that peer review fails to catch is ghostwriting, a process by which companies draft articles for academics who then publish them in journals, sometimes with little or no changes. These studies can then be used for political, regulatory, and marketing purposes. In 2010, the US Senate Finance Committee released a report that found this practice was widespread, that it corrupted the scientific literature and increased prescription rates. Ghostwritten articles have appeared in dozens of journals, involving professors at several universities. Just as experts in a particular field have a better understanding of the value of papers published in their area, scientists are considered to have better grasp of the value of published papers than the general public and to see peer review as a human process, with human failings, and that “despite its limitations, we need it.” ref

“It is all we have, and it is hard to imagine how we would get along without it”. But these subtleties are lost on the general public, who are often misled into thinking that being published in a journal with peer review is the “gold standard” and can erroneously equate published research with the truth. Thus, more care must be taken over how peer review, and the results of peer-reviewed research, are communicated to non-specialist audiences; particularly during a time in which a range of technical changes and a deeper appreciation of the complexities of peer review are emerging. This will be needed as the scholarly publishing system has to confront wider issues such as retractions and replication or reproducibility “crises.” ref

“Peer review is often considered integral to scientific discourse in one form or another. Its gatekeeping role is supposed to be necessary to maintain the quality of the scientific literature and avoid a risk of unreliable results, inability to separate signal from noise, and slow scientific progress. Shortcomings of peer review have been met with calls for even stronger filtering and more gatekeeping. A common argument in favor of such initiatives is the belief that this filter is needed to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature.” ref

“The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may sometimes impede progress and may be biased against novelty. A linguistic analysis of review reports suggests that reviewers focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers.” ref

“As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts’ are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn‘s well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions. A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly. Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent. There have also been suggestions of gender bias in peer review, with male authors being likely to receive more favorable treatment. However, a 2021 study found no evidence for such bias (and found that in some respects female authors were treated more favourably).” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Addressing Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudojournalism, Pseudoscholarship, and Pseudoscience

Science like logic should follow truth devoid of political or religious/nonreligious beliefs or persuasions. To me, to do otherwise is to move away from science and thus risks falling into pseudoscience.

“Pseudoarchaeology is the interpretation of the past from outside the archaeological science community, which rejects the accepted data-gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of fallacy, and fabrication of evidence.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology

“Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often by employing methods resembling those used in scholarly historical research. The related term cryptohistory is applied to pseudohistory derived from the superstitions intrinsic to occultism. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology, and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory

The Pseudo-Journalist Method: “Pseudo-journalism is the selective presentation of fragments of data, containing multiple factual misstatements, and filtered through the reporter’s deceptive analytical take, to present a “discovery” as something wildly at odds with reality.” https://www.npr.org/2010/07/22/128688443/the-new-republic-the-pseudo-journalist-method

(Pseudo-journalism, unlike standard journalism ethical standards, does not follow strict standards and is something that may appear to be journalistic but is not, rather it can be more rightly labeled fake/deceptive Pseudo-news.)

“Pseudo-scholarship (from pseudo- and scholarship) is a term used to describe work (e.g., publication, lecture) or a body of work that is presented as, but is not, the product of rigorous and objective study or research; the act of producing such work; or the pretended learning upon which it is based.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-scholarship

“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

“Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine, and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience/

I hear Over and Over again that there is NO “scientific proof”, only “science evidence or facts”

John Hoopes (Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas), who Graham Hancock thinks is “the most vehement and insulting of all archaeologists” and I think is great, addresses Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, The issue of pseudojournalism is as serious a problem as pseudoarchaeology. They sometimes go together. #AncientApocalypse

Kristen Doerschner @KrisDoerschner, I wonder this in the context of journalism because the rise of bloggers and social media has led to a lot of self-described “journalists” who aren’t ethical or even factual. I’ve had these debates about who can be a journalist. Where’s the line between gatekeeping and needing to have some level of education and oversight to be qualified to do a job properly?

“Journalistic ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and good practice applicable to journalists. This subset of media ethics is known as journalism’s professional “code of ethics” and the “canons of journalism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

“Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, ‘love of wisdom’) is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

“Philosophy is quite unlike any other field. It is unique both in its methods and in the nature and breadth of its subject matter. Philosophy pursues questions in every dimension of human life, and its techniques apply to problems in any field of study or endeavor. No brief definition expresses the richness and variety of philosophy. It may be described in many ways. It is a reasoned pursuit of fundamental truths, a quest for understanding, a study of principles of conduct.” ref

“Philosophy seeks to establish standards of evidence, to provide rational methods of resolving conflicts, and to create techniques for evaluating ideas and arguments. Philosophy develops the capacity to see the world from the perspective of other individuals and other cultures; it enhances one’s ability to perceive the relationships among the various fields of study; and it deepens one’s sense of the meaning and variety of human experience.” ref

“This short description of philosophy could be greatly expanded, but let us instead illustrate some of the points. As the systematic study of ideas and issues, philosophy may examine concepts and views drawn from science, art, religion, politics, or any other realm. Philosophical appraisal of ideas and issues takes many forms, but philosophical studies often focus on the meaning of an idea and on its basis, coherence, and relations to other ideas.” ref

Think yourself better: 10 rules of philosophy to live by (from Julian Baggini a writer and philosopher):

1. 1. Be sincere (to me, such as intellectual honesty)
2. Be charitable (to me, such as don’t attack others, attack ideas and strive to teach as well as be teachable)
3. Be humble (to me, such as epistemic humility)
4. 4. Keep it simple, but not simplistic (to me, such as be clear, not in error)
5. Watch your language (to me, such as words have power, they can build castles to protect or dungeons to torment. Strive to always watch your words/language, because others are listening.)
6. 6. Be eclectic
7. Think for yourself, not by yourself
8. Seek clarity, not certainty
9. Pay attention
10. Follow the mean

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/04/think-yourself-better-10-rules-of-philosophy-to-live-by

Archaeology Tube by Dr. Bill Farley addressing Real Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology as well as Science Communication with the Public

https://twitter.com/ArchaeologyGame/status/1645207740501962757

Bill Farley, eminent UCONN graduate @ArchaeologyGame, There’s an… interesting… trend right now having to do with the term “pseudoscience.” Those charged with it and those defending them suddenly find the term offensive, and are treating it like a slur, or even jumping straight to personal adoption (reclamation?) of the term. Except unlike slurs, which are definitionally just meant to harm and not based in reality, “pseudoscience” is an accusation – a charge of a specific type of behavior. This game of pretending it’s a slur is a smoke screen to cover for the fact that they can’t refute the charge. One more note I’ll add. Science is of course not the only way to learn about or know the past. It is not some perfectly exalted method. Criticisms of pseudoscience shouldn’t be read as a complete endorsement of the preeminence of science. At least not from me.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, For me, pseudoscience is more problematic than pseudoarchaeology. The former has been used to dismiss things that later became recognized as legitimate science. I can’t think of the latter having been used that way. That said, there is a distinction between those and bad science. I like the term “pseudoarchaeology” better than constructions such as “cult archaeology” or “alternative archaeology,” which imply that these are subcategories or varieties of archaeology when they are not. Is pornography “alternative urology” or “alternative gynecology”? No.

Damien Marie AtHope @AthopeMarie, Me too, I don’t use “cult archaeology” or “alternative archaeology,” as the term “pseudoarchaeology” explains more and does it with a clearer accuracy for clear understanding. I use the terms “pseudoarchaeology”, “pseudohistory”, and “pseudoscience”.

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, That’s a very fair assessment. And my guess is that if we looked hard enough we can find someone who has misused pseudoarchology to attack someone simply doing archaeology they didn’t like, though I think it’d be the exception that proves the rule.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, Of course not. That’s a pretty ridiculous notion. People without degrees can do good science and good archaeology. This helpful blog post by @anarchaeologie in both German and English provides a valuable assessment of how to recognize pseudoscience. Pseudo-archaeology on Netflix // Pseudo-archaeology on Netflix https://anarchaeologie.de/2023/04/08/pseudo-archaeologie-auf-netflix-pseudo-archaeology-on-netflix/

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, I definitely do not think a degree is what distinguishes between an archaeologist and a pseudoarchaeologist. Pursuing a degree can help because it’s a formalized way to learn the scientific method and the ethical and methodological framework of archaeology, but not the only way.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, Membership in the Society for American Archaeology @SAAorg does not require any degree. One of the problems with pseudoscience is that the boundaries of science are far from clear. We all do variations of science all the time as we live our daily lives, making empirical observations, doing experiments, evaluating explanations, and drawing logical conclusions. Thinking scientifically is something that can be done throughout the day. It can apply to the most mundane of activities. Of course, there is also magical, non-scientific thinking. This includes belief in the supernatural and taking things on faith.

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, It’s true. There are certain laws about who can submit an archaeological official report to a state agency that require a degree, usually a master’s, but that has more to do with a professional structure than any sort of gatekeeping. Gray literature reports.

Ӕcern Archӕology @Aecernist, As someone who has worked professionally in various jurisdictions where the MA/MSc are not required and some where it’s required, I can confirm it IS gatekeeping. The excuses for it never withstand scrutiny.

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, It’s professional gatekeeping, certainly. Though I don’t think it does anything to stop anyone from conducting archaeological research. It just makes it so you need a masters to get certain jobs in CRM. Whether that’s good or bad I think is a different discussion.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, Archaeology’s gatekeeping is a lot less stringent than nursing, journalism, architecture, plumbing, electrical work, auto repair, etc., etc.

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, That is only the extremely narrow confines of section 106 CRM law and legal compliance. There’s no restriction for instance on using those reports as data to write a paper to submit to a journal.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, There are restrictions on the use of proprietary information. Many archaeological reports are prepared under contract to private clients. That information is often not available to the public. There are even archaeological reports that can be prepared for government entities yet remain classified. These include archaeological assessments of military bases.

Bill Farley @ArchaeologyGame, Very true, and at least some states (Massachusetts comes to mind) are very careful about how they share locational information about any reports. They do this in the name of site preservation and for fear of looting.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, There are also many archaeological sites on private land. Private property is practically sacrosanct in the U.S. Unlike other countries, the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over archaeological resources on private land.

E.C. Gibson @ECGibson1 Possessed Archaeologist, Natural Scientist Ph.D., in 2022 stated:

John Hoopes @KUHoopes is our premier authority on Pseudo-archaeology, with over 40 years of experience. He has seen it all and done more than his fair share of myth debunking (which is why he has got under Hancock’s thin skin).

John Hoopes @KUHoopes, “Pseudo-“ means “fake.” If what they’re doing is fake archaeology, why not call it out? That said, I don’t use terms like “pseudo-Christian” or “pseudo-Indigenous.” I think it’s up to the members of groups that understand these identities to decide who’s fake and who’s not.

KU News Service @KUnews Dec 14, 2022, The latest episode of “When Experts Attack!” is a takedown of pseudo-archaeology, as anthropology professor John Hoopes explains the beef scientists like him have with hyped-up tales of Atlantis, aliens and apocalypses. Listen and subscribe. https://whenexpertsattack.libsyn.com/archaeology-is-science-pseudo-archaeology-is-nonsense

KU News Service @KUnews, Nov 3, 2022 Writing for @LeadStoriesCom, @madisondap, reached out to @KUCollege professor and pseudo-archaeology debunker John Hoopes (@KUHoopes) to ask about a TikTok video claiming “pyramids” in North America. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/11/fact-check-moors-not-original-inhabitants-of-north-america.html

Thomas Lecaque @tlecaque historian who specializes in the nexus of apocalyptic religion and political violence, stated, If you’re looking for great people to follow on here, especially if you are interested in archaeology and pseudoscience, may I recommend John Hoopes @KUHoopes? He’s successfully gotten under Graham Hancock’s skin and it is great but also pseudoscience is a real problem and his work fighting against it matters.

John Hoopes @KUHoopes Replying to @ECGibson1 and @tlecaque, stated, Wow. Thanks, man. As you well know, I’ve been at this for a long time now. I count it as fifty years from the time a girlfriend introduced me to Erich von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods?” She also introduced me to Kurt Vonnegut’s novel “Cat’s Cradle,” which is far better. In fact, reading anything by Kurt Vonnegut is a far more valuable investment of time than reading anything by Erich von Däniken, Graham Hancock, or other grifters. There fastest way to truth is through art, not science. Forget about the Stanzas of Dzyan. The Books of Bokonon are the path to light and truth. Cat’s Cradle is a satirical postmodern novel, with science fiction elements, by American writer Kurt Vonnegut: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat’s_Cradle

• Belief Etiquette: new Evidence supports one Speculation and Discredits another, but One must follow facts
• Digging Up Ancient Aliens, by Archaeologist Fredrik Trusohamn, uses a background in Archaeology to examine Ancient Aliens and Pseudo-History
• Brent Lee: Recovering Conspiracist and host of “Some Dare Call It Conspiracy”
• Addressing Graham Hancock the Pseudoarchaeological Theorist, as well as Flaws in his Ancient Apocalypse, Great flood, and Seafaring R1b

Pseudoarchaeology?

“There is no unified pseudoarchaeological theory or approach, but rather many different interpretations of the past that are jointly at odds with those developed by the scientific community. These include religious approaches such as creationism or “creation science” that applies to the archaeology of historic periods such as those that would have included the Tower of Babel, Noah’s Ark and the Genesis flood narrative, and the supposed worldwide flood myth. Some pseudoarchaeological theories revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Italian author Peter Kolosimo, French authors Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in The Morning of the Magicians (1963), and Swiss author Erich von Däniken in Chariots of the Gods? (1968). Others instead hold that there were human societies in the ancient period that were significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his Fingerprints of the Gods (1995). Pseudoarchaeology has also been manifest in Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.” ref

“Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such as archaeocryptography and pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from the British Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies include those that have been adopted by members of New Age and contemporary pagan belief systems. Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on “sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments”. The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.” ref

“Various terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term “cult archaeology” was used by figures like John R. Cole (1980) and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987). “Fantastic archaeology” was used in the 1980s as the name of an undergraduate course at Harvard University taught by Stephen Williams, who published a book with the same title. In the 2000s, the term “alternative archaeology” began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001), Robert J. Wallis (2003), Cornelius Holtorf (2006), and Gabriel Moshenka (2008). Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth Feder (2006) however claimed this term was only chosen because it “imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel” that “appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations”. They argued that the term “pseudoarchaeology” was far more appropriate, a term also used by other prominent academic and professional archaeologists such as Colin Renfrew (2006).” ref

“Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. Glyn Daniel, the editor of Antiquity, used the derogative “bullshit archaeology”, and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms used for pseudoarchaeology that were heard “in the privacy of professional archaeologists’ homes and offices but which cannot be mentioned in polite society.” ref 

“William H. Stiebing Jr. argued that despite their many differences, there were a set of core characteristics that almost all pseudoarchaeological interpretations shared. He believed that because of this, pseudoarchaeology could be categorized as a “single phenomenon”. He went on to identify three core commonalities of pseudeoarchaeological theories: the unscientific nature of its method and evidence, its history of providing “simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues”, and its tendency to present itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of the Enlightenment. This idea that there are core characteristics of pseudoarchaeologies is shared by other academics.” ref

“Academic critics have pointed out that pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect to use the scientific method. Instead of testing the evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudoarchaeologists “press-gang” the archaeological data to fit a “favored conclusion” that is often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma. Different pseudoarchaeological groups hold a variety of basic assumptions which are typically unscientific: the Nazi pseudoarchaeologists for instance took the cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption, whilst Christian fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists conceive of the Earth as being less than 10,000 years old and Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists. Despite this, many of pseudoarchaeology’s proponents claim that they reached their conclusions using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstrable that they have not.” ref

“Academic archaeologist John R. Cole believed that most pseudoarchaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works, and that they instead believe it to be a “simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle” between contesting theories. It was because of this failure to understand the scientific method, he argued, that the entire pseudoarchaeological approach to their arguments was faulty. He went on to argue that most pseudoarchaeologists do not consider alternative explanations to that which they want to propagate, and that their “theories” were typically just “notions”, not having sufficient supporting evidence to allow them to be considered “theories” in the scientific, academic meaning of the word.” ref

“Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudoarchaeologists typically use other forms of evidence to support their arguments. For instance, they often make use of “generalized cultural comparisons”, taking various artifacts and monuments from one society, and highlighting similarities with those of another to support a conclusion that both had a common source—typically an ancient lost civilization like Atlantis, Mu, or an extraterrestrial influence. This takes the different artifacts or monuments entirely out of their original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of the utmost importance.” ref

“Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudoarchaeologists is the interpretation of various myths as reflecting historical events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural contexts. For instance, pseudoarchaeologist Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilization represented a cosmic catastrophe that occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE. This was criticized by academic archaeologist William H. Stiebing Jr., who noted that such myths only developed in the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, two millennia after Velikovsky claimed that the events had occurred, and that the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.” ref

“Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing the much larger archaeological establishment. They often use language which disparages academics and dismisses them as being unadventurous, spending all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to challenge the orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In some more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused academic archaeologists of being members of a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth about history from the public. When academics challenge pseudoarchaeologists and criticize their theories, many pseudoarchaeologists see it as further evidence that their own ideas are right, and that they are simply being suppressed by members of this academic conspiracy.” ref

“The prominent English archaeologist Colin Renfrew admitted that the archaeological establishment was often “set in its ways and resistant to radical new ideas” but that this was not the reason why pseudoarchaeological theories were outright rejected by academics. Garrett G. Fagan expanded on this, noting how in the academic archaeological community, “New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinized to secure their validity … and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn.” Fagan noted that pseudoarchaeological theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.” ref

“Conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising the academic archaeological establishment, also attempt to get support from people with academic credentials and affiliations. At times, they quote historical, and in most cases, dead academics to back up their arguments; for instance prominent pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, in his seminal Fingerprints of the Gods (1995), repeatedly notes that the eminent physicist Albert Einstein once commented positively on the pole shift hypothesis, a theory that has been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock supports. As Fagan noted however, the fact that Einstein was a physicist and not a geologist is not even mentioned by Hancock, nor is the fact that the understanding of plate tectonics (which came to disprove earth crustal displacement) only came to light following Einstein’s death.” ref

“Pseudoarchaeology can be motivated by nationalism (cf. Nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption to establish the Germanic people as the descendants of the original Aryan ‘master race’) or a desire to prove a particular religious (cf. intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail. According to archaeologist John Hoopes, writing in the magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, “Pseudoarchaeology actively promotes myths that are routinely used in the service of white supremacy, racialized nationalism, colonialism, and the dispossession and oppression of indigenous peoples.” ref

“Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by pointing to differences in research methodology, including recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic approach to collecting data. Though there is overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions about the past, objective analysis of folk archaeology—in anthropological terms of their cultural contexts and the cultural needs they respond to—have been comparatively few. However, in this vein, Robert Silverberg located the Mormons‘ use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus and the voyage of Madoc and “Welsh Indians” was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by Gwyn Williams.” ref

“Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeological theories include the young earth theory of some Judeo-Christian fundamentalists. They argue that the Earth is 4,000–10,000 years old, with figures varying, depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years it is generally believed to have existed. Archaeologist John R. Cole refers to such beliefs as “cult archaeology” and believes them to be pseudoarchaeological. He went on to say that this “pseudoarchaeology” had “many of the attributes, causes, and effects of religion.” ref

“A more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology is the claim of Ron Wyatt to have discovered Noah’s ark, the graves of Noah and his wife, the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, and numerous other important sites. However, he has not presented evidence sufficient to impress Bible scholars, scientists, and historians. Answers in Genesis propagates many pseudoscientific notions as part of its creationist ministry. Pseudoarchaeology can be practiced intentionally or unintentionally. Archaeological frauds and hoaxes are considered intentional pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally converted to pseudoarchaeology through unscientific interpretation. (cf. confirmation bias)” ref

“An Aryan supremacist view of history has set itself in the pseudoarcheology of the Middle East to building up a pseudo-history of Babylon the great, in contradiction to the Semitic view of Judeo-Christian and Biblical history, resulting in fraudulent cuneiform tablets as clay tablets are difficult to date. “By 1904, during the early period of cuneiform tablet collecting, J. Edgar Banks, a Mesopotamian explorer and tablet dealer, estimated that nearly 80% of tablets offered for sale in Baghdad were fakes. In 2016, Syria’s Director General for Antiquities and Museums reported that approximately 70% of seized artifacts in the country are fakes.” ref

“Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been motivated by racism, especially when the basic intent was to discount or deny the abilities of non-white peoples to make significant accomplishments in astronomy, architecture, sophisticated technology, ancient writing, seafaring, and other accomplishments generally identified as evidence of “civilization“. Racism can be implied by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artifacts to Lost Tribes, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or even extraterrestrial intelligence rather than to the intelligence and ingenuity of indigenous peoples. Practitioners of pseudoarchaeology often rail against academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming that conventional science has overlooked critical evidence. Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which “the Establishment” colludes in suppressing evidence.” ref

“Countering the misleading “discoveries” of pseudoarchaeology binds academic archaeologists in a quandary, described by Cornelius Holtorf as whether to strive to disprove alternative approaches in a “crusading” approach or to concentrate on better public understanding of the sciences involved; Holtorf suggested a third, relativist and contextualized  approach, in identifying the social and cultural needs that both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and in identifying the engagement with the material remains of the past in the present in terms of critical understanding and dialogue with “multiple pasts”, such as Barbara Bender explored for Stonehenge. In presenting the quest for truths as a process rather than results, Holtorf quoted Gotthold Lessing (Eine Duplik, 1778):

If God were to hold in his right hand all the truth and in his left the unique ever-active spur for truth, although with the corollary to err forever, asking me to choose, I would humbly take his left and say “Father, give; for the pure truth is for you alone!” ref

“Archaeological readings of the landscape enrich the experience of inhabiting or visiting a place,” Holtorf asserted. “Those readings may well be based on science but even non-scientific research contributes to enriching our landscapes.” The question for opponents of folk archaeology is whether such enrichment is delusional. Many aspects of Maya civilization have inspired pseudoarchaeological speculation. In Mexico, this history can bring more people which in turn brings more money for the area, which the Maya peoples usually do not receive. Many examples of pseudoarcheology pertaining to Maya civilization can be found in literature, art, and film. Many of them have to do with the 2012 phenomenon and the Maya calendar. These are often referred to as Mayanism, a collection of New Age beliefs about Mayas and Maya religion and/or spirituality. That said, Maya culture has long been a subject of scientific archaeology. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence that has furthered our knowledge of the past. Some of these include stone carvings in Tikal that show the earliest stories of Sihyaj Chan Kʼawiil II and materials recovered from Chichén Itzá.” ref

Pseudohistory?

“Although pseudohistory comes in many forms, scholars have identified many features that tend to be common in pseudohistorical works; one example is that the use of pseudohistory is almost always motivated by a contemporary political, religious, or personal agenda. Pseudohistory also frequently presents sensational claims or a big lie about historical facts which would require unwarranted revision of the historical record. Notable examples of pseudohistory include British Israelism, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the Irish slaves myth, the witch-cult, Armenian genocide denial, Holocaust denial, the clean Wehrmacht myth, the 16th- and 17th-century Spanish Black Legend, and the claim that the Katyn massacre was not committed by the Soviet NKVD.” ref

“A common feature of pseudohistory is an underlying premise that there is a conspiracy among scholars to promote so-called “mainstream history” over “true” history, an assertion commonly corroborated by elaborate conspiracy theories. Works of pseudohistory often point exclusively to unreliable sources—including myths and legends, often treated as literal historical truth—to support the thesis being promoted while ignoring valid sources that contradict it. Sometimes a work of pseudohistory will adopt a position of historical relativism, insisting that there is really no such thing as historical truth and that any hypothesis is just as good as any other. Many works of pseudohistory conflate mere possibility with actuality, assuming that if something could have happened, then it did.” ref

“The term pseudohistory was coined in the early nineteenth century, which makes the word older than the related terms pseudo-scholarship and pseudoscience. In an attestation from 1815, it is used to refer to the Contest of Homer and Hesiod, a purportedly historical narrative describing an entirely fictional contest between the Greek poets Homer and Hesiod. The pejorative sense of the term, labeling a flawed or disingenuous work of historiography, is found in another 1815 attestation. Pseudohistory is akin to pseudoscience in that both forms of falsification are achieved using the methodology that purports to, but does not, adhere to the established standards of research for the given field of intellectual enquiry of which the pseudoscience claims to be a part, and which offers little or no supporting evidence for its plausibility.” ref

“Writers Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman define pseudohistory as “the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes”. Other writers take a broader definition; Douglas Allchin, a historian of science, contends that when the history of scientific discovery is presented in a simplified way, with drama exaggerated and scientists romanticized, this creates wrong stereotypes about how science works, and in fact constitutes pseudohistory, despite being based on real facts. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke prefers the term “cryptohistory”. He identifies two necessary elements as “a complete ignorance of the primary sources” and the repetition of “inaccuracies and wild claims.” ref

“Robert Todd Carroll has developed a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. He states that:

Pseudohistory is purported history which:

• Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth
• Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients
• Is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth about the past
• Often denies that there is such a thing as historical truth, clinging to the extreme skeptical notion that only what is absolutely certain can be called ‘true’ and nothing is absolutely certain, so nothing is true
• Often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness or honesty, but on moral or political grounds
• Is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which do not fit
• Considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one’s agenda
• Often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda” ref

“Other common characteristics of pseudohistory are:

• The arbitrary linking of disparate events so as to form – in the theorist’s opinion – a pattern. This is typically then developed into a conspiracy theory postulating a hidden agent responsible for creating and maintaining the pattern. For example, the pseudohistorical The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail links the Knights Templar, the medieval Grail Romances, the Merovingian Frankish dynasty, and the artist Nicolas Poussin in an attempt to identify lineal descendants of Jesus.
• Hypothesising the consequences of unlikely events that “could” have happened, thereby assuming tacitly that they did.
• Sensationalism, or shock value
• Cherry picking evidence that helps the historical argument being made and suppressing evidence that hurts it.” ref

Categories and Examples of Pseudohistory?

Ancient aliens, ancient technologies, and lost lands: Ancient astronauts

“Immanuel Velikovsky‘s books Worlds in Collision (1950), Ages in Chaos (1952), and Earth in Upheaval (1955), which became “instant bestsellers”, demonstrated that pseudohistory based on ancient mythology held the potential for tremendous financial success and became models of success for future works in the genre.” ref

“In 1968, Erich von Däniken published Chariots of the Gods?, which claims that ancient visitors from outer space constructed the pyramids and other monuments. He has since published other books in which he makes similar claims. These claims have all been categorized as pseudohistory.^[6]: 201 Similarly, Zechariah Sitchin has published numerous books claiming that a race of extraterrestrial beings from the Planet Nibiru known as the Anunnaki visited Earth in ancient times in search of gold, and that they genetically engineered humans to serve as their slaves. He claims that memories of these occurrences are recorded in Sumerian mythology, as well as other mythologies all across the globe. These speculations have likewise been categorized as pseudohistory.” ref

“The ancient astronaut hypothesis was further popularized in the United States by the History Channel television series Ancient Aliens. History professor Ronald H. Fritze observed that the pseudohistorical claims promoted by von Däniken and the Ancient Aliens program have a periodic popularity in the US: “In a pop culture with a short memory and a voracious appetite, aliens and pyramids, and lost civilizations are recycled like fashions.” ref

“The author Graham Hancock has sold over four million copies of books promoting the pseudohistorical thesis that all the major monuments of the ancient world, including Stonehenge, the Egyptian pyramids, and the moai of Easter Island, were built by a single ancient supercivilization, which Hancock claims thrived from 15,000 to 10,000 BCE and possessed technological and scientific knowledge equal to or surpassing that of modern civilization. He first advanced the full form of this argument in his 1995 bestseller Fingerprints of the Gods,^[6] which won popular acclaim, but scholarly disdain. Christopher Knight has published numerous books, including Uriel’s Machine (2000), expounding pseudohistorical assertions that ancient civilizations possessed technology far more advanced than the technology of today. The claim that a lost continent known as Lemuria once existed in the Pacific Ocean has likewise been categorized as pseudohistory.” ref

Antisemitic pseudohistory: Blood libel

“The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fraudulent work purporting to show a historical conspiracy for world domination by Jews. The work was conclusively proven to be a forgery in August 1921, when The Times revealed that extensive portions of the document were directly plagiarized from Maurice Joly‘s 1864 satirical dialogue The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, as well as Hermann Goedsche‘s 1868 anti-Semitic novel Biarritz.” ref

“The Khazar theory is an academic fringe theory that postulates that the bulk of European Jewry are of Central Asian (Turkic) origin. In spite of mainstream academic consensus conclusively rejecting it, this theory has been promoted in Anti-Semitic and some Anti-Zionist circles, arguing that Jews are an alien element both in Europe and in Palestine. Holocaust denial and genocide denial in general are widely categorized as pseudohistory. Major proponents of Holocaust denial include David Irving and others, who argue that the Holocaust, Holodomor, Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, Greek genocide, and other genocides did not occur, or were exaggerated greatly.” ref

Alternative chronologies

“An alternative chronology is a revised sequence of events that deviates from the standard timeline of world history accepted by mainstream scholars. An example of an “alternative chronology” is Anatoly Fomenko‘s New Chronology, which claims that recorded history actually began around AD 800 and all events that allegedly occurred prior to that point either never really happened at all or are simply inaccurate retellings of events that happened later. One of its outgrowths is the Tartary conspiracy theory. Other, less extreme examples, are the phantom time hypothesis, which asserts that the years AD 614–911 never took place; and the New Chronology of David Rohl, which claims that the accepted timelines for ancient Egyptian and Israelite history are wrong.” ref

Ethnocentric revisionism

“Most Afrocentric (i.e. Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories, see Ancient Egyptian race controversy) ideas have been identified as pseudohistorical, alongside the “Indigenous Aryans” theories published by Hindu nationalists during the 1990s and 2000s. The “crypto-history” developed within Germanic mysticism and Nazi occultism has likewise been placed under this categorization. Among leading Nazis, Heinrich Himmler is believed to have been influenced by occultism and according to one theory, developed the SS base at Wewelsburg in accordance with an esoteric plan. Other Nationalist histories have strong pseudohistorical influences, including Kurdish, Albanian, Turkish, Arab, and Germanic.” ref

“The Sun Language Theory is a pseudohistorical ideology which argues that all languages are descended from a form of proto-Turkish. The theory may have been partially devised in order to legitimize Arabic and Semitic loanwords occurring in the Turkish language by instead asserting that the Arabic and Semitic words were derived from the Turkish ones rather than vice versa. A large number of nationalist pseudohistorical theories deal with the legendary Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. British-Israelism, also known as Anglo-Israelism, the most famous example of this type, has been conclusively refuted by mainstream historians using evidence from a vast array of different fields of study.” ref

“Another form of ethnocentric revisionism is nationalistic pseudohistory. The “Ancient Macedonians continuity theory” is one such pseudohistorical theory, which postulates demographic, cultural, and linguistic continuity between Macedonians of antiquity and the main ethnic group in present-day North Macedonia. Also, the Bulgarian medieval dynasty of the Komitopules, which ruled the First Bulgarian Empire in its last decades, is presented as “Macedonian”, ruling a “medieval Macedonian state”, because of the location of its capitals in Macedonia.” ref

Historical falsification

“In the eighth century, a forged document known as Donation of Constantine, which supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope, became widely circulated. In the twelfth century, Geoffrey of Monmouth published the History of the Kings of Britain, a pseudohistorical work purporting to describe the ancient history and origins of the British people. The book synthesizes earlier Celtic mythical traditions to inflate the deeds of the mythical King Arthur. The contemporary historian William of Newburgh wrote around 1190 that “it is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others.” ref

Historical revisionism

“The Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory that claims that the works attributed to William Shakespeare were actually written by someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Another example of historical revisionism is the thesis, found in the writings of David Barton and others, asserting that the United States was founded as an exclusively Christian nation. Mainstream historians instead support the traditional position, which holds that the American founding fathers intended for church and state to be kept separate. Confederate revisionists (a.k.a. Civil War revisionists), “Lost Cause” advocates, and Neo-Confederates argue that the Confederate States of America‘s prime motivation was the maintenance of states’ rights and limited government, rather than the preservation and expansion of slavery.” ref

“Connected to the Lost Cause is the Irish slaves myth, a pseudo-historical narrative which conflates the experiences of Irish  indentured servants and enslaved Africans in the Americas. This myth, which was historically promoted by Irish nationalists such as John Mitchel, has in the modern-day been promoted by white supremacists in the United States to minimize the mistreatment experienced by African Americans (such as racism and segregation) and oppose demands for slavery reparations. The myth has also been used to obscure and downplay Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.” ref

Psychohistory: Psychohistory

“Mainstream historians have categorized psychohistory as pseudohistory. Psychohistory is an amalgam of psychology, history, and related social sciences and the humanities. Its stated goal is to examine the “why” of history, especially the difference between stated intention and actual behavior. It also states as its goal the combination of the insights of psychology, especially psychoanalysis, with the research methodology of the social sciences and humanities to understand the emotional origin of the behavior of individuals, groups, and nations, past and present.” ref

Racist pseudohistory

“Josiah Priest and other nineteenth-century American writers wrote pseudohistorical narratives that portrayed African Americans and Native Americans in an extremely negative light. Priest’s first book was The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1826). The book is regarded by modern critics as one of the earliest works of modern American pseudohistory. Priest attacked Native Americans in American Antiquities and Discoveries of the West (1833) and African-Americans in Slavery, As It Relates to the Negro (1843). Other nineteenth-century writers, such as Thomas Gold Appleton, in his A Sheaf of Papers (1875), and George Perkins Marsh, in his The Goths in New England, seized upon false notions of Viking history to promote the superiority of white people (as well as to oppose the Catholic Church). Such misuse of Viking history and imagery reemerged in the twentieth century among some groups promoting white supremacy.” ref

Religious pseudohistory

“The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln is a book that purports to show that certain historical figures, such as Godfrey of Bouillon, and contemporary aristocrats are the lineal descendants of Jesus. Mainstream historians have widely panned the book, categorizing it as pseudohistory, and pointing out that the genealogical tables used in it are now known to be spurious. Nonetheless, the book was an international best-seller and inspired Dan Brown‘s bestselling mystery thriller novel The Da Vinci Code.” ref

“Although historians and archaeologists consider the Book of Mormon to be an anachronistic invention of Joseph Smith, many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) believe that it describes ancient historical events in the Americas.  Searches for Noah’s Ark have also been categorized as pseudohistory. The Christ myth theory claims that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical figure and that his existence was invented by early Christians. This argument currently finds very little support among scholars and historians of all faiths and has been described as pseudohistorical.” ref

“In her books, starting with The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921), English author Margaret Murray claimed that the witch trials in the early modern period were actually an attempt by chauvinistic Christians to annihilate a secret, pagan religion, which she claimed worshipped a Horned God. Murray’s claims have now been widely rejected by respected historians. Nonetheless, her ideas have become the foundation myth for modern Wicca, a contemporary Neopagan religion. Belief in Murray’s alleged witch-cult is still prevalent among Wiccans, but is gradually declining.” ref

Pseudohistory and Hinduism

“The belief that Ancient India was technologically advanced to the extent of being a nuclear power is gaining popularity in India. Emerging extreme nationalist trends and ideologies based on Hinduism in the political arena promote these discussions. Vasudev Devnani, the education minister for the western state of Rajasthan, said in January 2017 that it was important to “understand the scientific significance” of the cow, as it was the only animal in the world to both inhale and exhale oxygen.” ref 

“In 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told a gathering of doctors and medical staff at a Mumbai hospital that the story of the Hindu god Ganesha showed genetic science existed in ancient India. Many new-age pseudohistorians who focus on converting mythological stories into history are well-received among the crowd. Indian Science Congress ancient aircraft controversy is a related event when Capt. Anand J. Bodas, retired principal of a pilot training facility, claimed that aircraft more advanced than today’s versions existed in ancient India at the Indian Science Congress.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Here is some info Damien offers for everyone to consider: 

“Conjectures disproven through counterexample are sometimes referred to as false conjectures. Conjecture is related to hypothesis, which in science refers to a testable conjecture.” ref 

“Speculative reason, sometimes called theoretical reason or pure reason, is theoretical (or logical, deductive) thought, as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. The distinction between the two goes at least as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle.” ref  

“Unsupported assertion can be assumed when there is no evidence that such a Conjecture/Unsupported assertion is correct.” ref

My point is that he strives for reasoned speculations on prehistory, from logical jumps, related to supporting evidence, not wild conjectures or unsupported assertions/assumptions thus likely false conjectures/unreasoned speculations found in pseudo-history or pseudo-science in general. 

“Pseudohistory ignores empirical or logical evidence and is not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, reasoned fairness, or unbiased honesty.” ref 

I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education. I strive to address fake history (Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, and Pseudoscience) and its supporters as well as try to teach real history. I also make speculations on history from how I see the evidence relating. I strive to be right in my thinking and actions but understand as an agreer to some of fallibilism‘s thinking, that I know I can be wrong and am thus rationally open to changing my thinking on valid and reliable reason and evidence. It is my welcoming correction that distills my thinking to the purity available to reach reason.

Here is the form of fallibilism I am thinking, “The claim that all assertions are provisional and thus open to revision in light of new evidence, which is widely taken for granted in the natural sciences.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyḗus/Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Pleth₂wih₁) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com