Thanks for writing this. I've seen Gunung Padang and saw nothing that indicates that the claims of being an ancient megalithic site are true. But I'm no archaeologist, nor am I a geologist. I read Danny's paper, and am very suspicious of dating technology, saw nothing there that convinced me. Your paper makes a good case. I appreciate it.
> ... in the 1980’s - 1990’s as part of a nationalist push to promote the deep past of the country.
That in itself isn't necessarily bad as one should recognize and be proud of their country's origins. But if that is stacked on top of fabricated or just plain false claims it tend of does the opposite.
I remember new atheism and the sceptic movement before it went insane, those guys were cringe at times, but maybe we'll come to regret not having people spending their leisure time debunking nonsense
" it is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom".... But...
"Overall, skepticism is a common sense and positive approach that allows us to enjoy our position in the world without the blinkers of fear or ignorance"... So in a time of fear and ignorance, when we are not enjoying our time in the world, even the sceptics run to conformity.😁
A skeptic is now defined as someone who uncritically defers to the experts. They were pushing that definition in the climate debate a decade ago to distinguish 'real' skeptics from those who persisted in asking inconvenient questions. It's probably still to be found on that website with its doubly oxymoronic name, 'Skeptical Science.'
Ideology trumps methodology once again. Could we even land on the moon today?
That's one of those questions that should occupy public policy, it should drive it.
Thanks for writing this. I've seen Gunung Padang and saw nothing that indicates that the claims of being an ancient megalithic site are true. But I'm no archaeologist, nor am I a geologist. I read Danny's paper, and am very suspicious of dating technology, saw nothing there that convinced me. Your paper makes a good case. I appreciate it.
Glad to break it down for non-specialists. People mostly 'want' it to be true, which flies in the face of good science
> ... in the 1980’s - 1990’s as part of a nationalist push to promote the deep past of the country.
That in itself isn't necessarily bad as one should recognize and be proud of their country's origins. But if that is stacked on top of fabricated or just plain false claims it tend of does the opposite.
An injection of scepticism seems like it should be mandatory these days 😁
I remember new atheism and the sceptic movement before it went insane, those guys were cringe at times, but maybe we'll come to regret not having people spending their leisure time debunking nonsense
A lot of the sceptics are captured theses days...
https://www.skeptics.com.au/about/
" it is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom".... But...
"Overall, skepticism is a common sense and positive approach that allows us to enjoy our position in the world without the blinkers of fear or ignorance"... So in a time of fear and ignorance, when we are not enjoying our time in the world, even the sceptics run to conformity.😁
A skeptic is now defined as someone who uncritically defers to the experts. They were pushing that definition in the climate debate a decade ago to distinguish 'real' skeptics from those who persisted in asking inconvenient questions. It's probably still to be found on that website with its doubly oxymoronic name, 'Skeptical Science.'
Thanks. Yes I've read that website before... Just another mob of captured/ brainwashed " thinkers"!
Thanks for a rational explanation of the site and the fantasies around it.
You're welcome. One should always beware the little nationalisms and their insistence on ancient days of glory