- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Reliance on Experts
Graham Hancock (Netflix Ancient Apocalypse) VS ARCHAEOLOGISTS: A British ex-archaeologist RESPONDS
scholagladiatoria, 10 Jan. 2023
6:58 Expert is not a Latin word.
Well, technically it is, since "expertus, experta, expertum" (not to be confused with "expers, expertis" / "with no part in") is a Latin word, and it's where "expert" comes from.
However, when it comes to designating people with expert status, Romans had different words for some different expertise.
A faber was an expert craftsman.
A medicus was a physician, an expert in medicine.
An architectus was an architect, and you were certainly an expert having been apprentice under similar ones before you were trusted to direct a building project with Vitruvius for guide.
But while Englishmen would consider "faber, medicus, architectus" as species of "expert" this wider word does not exist in Latin.
In archaeology, on top of that, expertise is a recent thing. Schliemann was clearly an amateur.
But there is more. If I want to know how to do a dig, I will certainly consult archaeologists. But if I want to know what a dig they already made means, I don't see that "expertise" in the sense that Romans used of some expertises even exists. It's a theoretical question, not a "practical" or rather factive one.
If I were to write a fan fic on how Stone Henge was built and why, and if it takes into account all or as many as possible of the data archaeologists have directly shown - I don't see why my reconstruction would be less credible than theirs, just because they are experts. Now, there is a problem, legitimately, when people, who have dug up a thing, think they have copy right and patent and registered trade mark type of rights when it comes to interpreting what they have dug up. And I think Graham Hancock was up against that, and that is what he is talking about.
17:50 So, prior to Svante Pääbo sequencing the Neanderthal genome, the consensus was "we are not part Neanderthal"?
Some ways in which certain Catholics compromise with the Evolution paradigm while still holding man as a separate creature were better in line with that...which is obviously wrong.
20:19 I hope you are using "reliance on experts" in another way than GH did.
You mean reliance on atomary facts that they provide.
He means reliance on the paradigm under which they operate.
And when it comes to "lost civilisation surfacing" (rather than a new one emerging) at Göbekli Tepe, they so far do seem pretty monolithic in rejecting it.
Which I for a reason different from GH think they shouldn't reject. (Pre-Flood, prior to 3 and 1/2 centuries all palaeolithic culture).
21:56 Like given. I sent you a link related to this, please see you get a mail from hgl (at) dr (dot) com.