ANTH 1001 Final
Caught on this family's video camera one night is the image of a "ghost baby" lying in the crib next to their real baby. Should the parents have called in Ghostbusters OR is there a more probable explanation? In reality, the parents forgot to lay down a mattress pad over the mattress. The baby drooled, which made the thin sheet a bit transparent and the decal on the mattress was revealed. Create a table similar to the one I built as an example of using Occam's Razor to analyze the metal installation in Utah to compare "ghost baby" vs. "drooling baby." Identify which statements are "assumptions" and which are "factual".
"Ghost Baby" vs"Drooling Baby" Ghosts exist (assumption) vsBabies are known to drool (fact) Ghosts can appear to look like a baby (assumption) vs Sheets are capable of being transparent when wet (fact) A ghost visited the baby in it's crib at home (assumption) vs It is possible the mattress pad could be visible through a wet sheet (fact)
What is pseudoscience?
A claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not follow the scientific method
Describe and compare the filmmaker's claim to the claim made by Feder (in your textbook) for this sight. Which claim has more solid (good) evidence (HINT: how does the evidence presented for the different claims meet the criteria for "science" or "pseudo-science". Check the Patterns of Evidence and Feder's checklist).
A lot of the evidence that Wolter offers is anecdotal evidence, for example, he says a lot of phrases like "this just has an old feel to it." That evidence is completely based on personal observation and experiences. The video also begins with a claim and works backward to try to prove his theory, rather than testing ideas. Wolfer makes a lot of claims that go beyond the evidence given, such as the flat slab's creases are automatically assumed to be for draining the blood from sacrifices because Phoenicians are known for doing so and because they had previously made a connection to the Phoenicians with the man-made message on the stone. How does he know those creases in the stone weren't for something else? What proves that it was used to drain blood from sacrifices? He just automatically makes the leap without any solid evidence. The evidence given by Wolter to meet his claims matches the criteria of pseudo-science. Feder presents evidence that is more than just one stone slab, there are several stone labs found over New England with exit channels, and have considered the context of these slabs. Many of these slabs context show their use in farm industries, specifically for the production of lye soap and apple cider. Feder also provides an explanation for the place carved out in the bed stone for a bucket, as shown in the video, that it was a common practice to have an existing channel lead up to the outlet to collect the cider during this time. Feder provides more evidence of material artifacts dating back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in their context suggests their use in cider-press bed stones. Feder also offers evidence of an excavation done in the 1950s on the site and states that over 7,000 artifacts were found and none dated back to before Columbus and were actually dated to prehistoric Indian manufacture and nineteenth-century European manufacture. Feder uses claims that are conservative and tentative, he considers all arguments and evidence and follows the evidence where it leads. Feder has much more solid evidence and his claims meet the criteria for science.
The Moundbuilders have been identified archaeologically as
A number of different prehistoric Native American cultures over time who built mounds for different purposes
The narrator on the video is Scott Wolter. Which of these statements best represent the Walter's primary claim in the video?
Ancient Phoenicians constructed both this site and the Stonehenge in England as both are megalithic stone sites that served as astronomical calendars.
Which of the following statements best describes the types of evidence that the Vieirra brothers rely upon:
Anecdotal evidence Newspaper stories and 19th c. reports Stories, myths, and legends of giant skeletons with double rows of teeth Stories of giants in the Old Testament
IF the artifact was used as a battery for electroplating (or anything else), WHAT ELSE would you expect to find in the archaeological record?
Artifacts with a metal coating (things that had been electroplated) A wire and/or some way to attach to the copper tube to create a circuit. Other similar "batteries" and not just this one example.
Archaeology shows the pyramids of Egypt were constructed
By preparing the worksite by leveling the building surface through the use of local Egyptian human labor to cut and move the stone blocks by quarrying the stone blocks from the Giza plateau All answers are correct
Why wasn't radio-carbon dating used at the time to determine the age of the Piltdown finds?
Carbon dating only works on organic material. A fossilized bone has no remaining organic materials. Radiocarbon dating wasn't developed until 40 years after PIltdown was discovered. They did use radiocarbon dating, once they suspected PIltdown was a hoax. All answers are correct.
An example of a not logical argument
Chaco Canyon is in a ley line vortex and is the center of many magnetic fields. "The energy fields may be things that the extraterrestrials have been harnessing for a long time because instead of using the kind of fossil fuel, they harness the electromagnetic energy field of Earth." This is a not logical argument because how does Chaco Canyon being an electromagnetic energy field mean that extraterrestrials have been harnessing that energy for a long time? What is the evidence of extraterrestrials even being present in Chaco Canyon? And how does that mean that they used the electromagnetic energy present there? How do they know they used that energy?
An example of a disregard for alternative explanations
Chaco canyon was the central part of some kind of central system. The video states that "people just vanished and abandoned the ruins." They also mention that archaeologists were unable to find any kind of burial or graveyards. They suggest because they are no signs of any kind of funeral that people just abandoned the ruins or it was used for something else. This is an unfounded assumption because what if the people of Chaco Canyon burned their people after death or buried them on other grounds? What if archaeologists just haven't found them because they are looking in other places? The video just completely disregards any other kinds of explanations for the missing remains of the people of Chaco canyon and concludes that it has to be because they "vanished" or "abandoned ruins".
If you chose earlier that you believe Atlantis is a real place with a real location, do you now think that maybe you were mislead by a mistake we make in our thinking?
Correct yes Correct Answer no Correct Answer maybe Correct Answer I don't know Correct! something else
We are often faced with situations where we have to accept information about which we are ignorant (for example, when you visit the doctor). Based on what I've learned about you from your introductions, few of you are science majors, so all of you are probably equally ignorant about the ability to turn water into metal - something which sounds more miraculous than real (like turning water into wine?). Below is a popular article describing how scientists recently turned water into metal, followed by 2 articles on flat earth. Scientists transform water into shiny, golden metalLinks to an external site. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-conspiracy-theorists-flat-earth-society-blast-elon-musks-astonishing-a3761471.htmlLinks to an external site. https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.htmlLinks to an external site. INSTRUCTIONS: Compare the claims as presented in these articles. Then mark all the statements (below) that are "correct".
Correct! Water-turning-metal scientists are credentialed scientists. Correct! Water-turning-metal scientists are using the scientific method to investigate their claim Correct Answer Water-turning-metal scientists published in a peer reviewed journal (referenced as a link in this livescience article). Correct! Water-turning-metal scientists' experiments are reproducible. Correct! The flat-earth articles list only anecdotal evidence to support their claim. Correct! The arguments in supporter of a flat earth are based on unfounded assumptions. Correct! The flat-earth position is based on an outrageous and controversial claim. Correct! Flat-earth supporters rely on misperceptions and intuitions.
Which claim is more probable because it best meets Occam's Razor (the claim that has the fewest number of assumptions)?
Drooling Baby; If it's a "ghost, you need to assume that ghosts exist, that they could look like a baby, that we can see them, etc. In this case the baby drooling made the sheet a bit transparent revealing the decal on the mattress, in which case you only need to "assume" that babies drool (check), that wetness might make a thin sheet appear transparent (check), and that mattress companies stick marketing decals on mattresses (check). So the baby drool requires fewer assumptions of things we don't know and can't prove, and thus "ghost baby" is not the simplest and does not meet the definition of Occam's Razor.
IF the artifact is a sign that ancient Mesopotamians discovered electricity 2000 years ago, what else would you expect to find?
Evidence for electricle use like motors, sockets and outlets, wires or ways to transfer the energy to other devices.
Accessing Ancient Aliens: An example of an outrageous or controversial claim
Experts suggest that NASA may be a front and the U.S. government and NASA may have a secret space program that may investigate earth for ancient connections to otherworldly beings. This is one of the first claims they make in the video which is very controversial because it presents a challenge or debate of intense public argument. It is controversial because people hold different views and beliefs of the government and NASA, such as if they hide things from the public or not.
Aliens built the Egyptian pyramids.
False
An impartial (or unbiased) person may be more likely to fall for confirmation bias (the mistake of seeking to confirm).
False
Because Indians were not building mounds when Europeans arrived, it is a logical conclusion that the ancestors of the Indians were not the builders of the mounds.
False
Before all the great civilizations that we know of (and for which we have good evidence of), like Egypt, China, Inca, Maya, etc., there was an EVEN EARLIER, technologically advanced and superior civilization that spread its knowledge around the world before disappearing (think ATLANTIS).
False
Columbus was the first person to discover America.
False
Due to archaeology's ability to study places far removed from us in time and geography, theoretical archaeology has nothing to contribute to the search for extra terrestrials.
False
Egyptian Pharaohs were really aliens.
False
Footprints and a fossilized human finger are good evidence to support the theory that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
False
In archaeology, CONTEXT (where an artifact is found and what it is found with) makes no impact on how an artifact is interpreted. What's most important is what the artifact looks like.
False
In deducing the origins of the Native Americans, it is best to rely on cultural comparisons between Native Americans and Old World Jewish populations that demonstrate similarities between these two groups of people.
False
Sailing a copy of a Phoenician vessel across the Atlantic is solid proof that Phoenicians could have crossed the Atlantic 2600 years ago and beat Columbus.
False
The founder of Body Glove and a professional diver, Bob Meistrell, together with Amateur Historian and Organic Chemist Lee propose a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery of American. Nautical Archaeologist Larry Pierson and Art historian and East Asian Studies professor Jenny Purtle argue that it's not possible and that the most logical explanation for the stone anchors is 19th century Chinese fishing. Both sides bring compelling evidence to the debate. Without knowing more, it is thus impossible for you to know which argument is more probable.
False
There is good material culture evidence that Phoenicians settled in North America
False
The NYU anthropologist interviewed holds up a bone and tells them that the "unlikely becomes absolutely true with physical evidence". In other words, he is telling the Vieira brothers that they need physical evidence, like a human bone, to support their hypothesis. The inclusion of this statement means that the anthropologist (i.e. a true expert in the field) supports the Vieira brothers' claim of pre-diluvian (before the Old Testament flood) giants in North America.
False The film makers include this interview because they are trying to persuade their audience that there is support for their claim, but if you listen closely to the real expert, he is saying that their claim can only be supported with physical evidence. There is no evidence anywhere in the film that they have "physical evidence" - e.g. no bones or other skeletal material has been found (they only have "reports"/stories of earlier findings of giant skeletons, but no real evidence that these earlier reports are true and no one in recent times has ever seen these "skeletons").
A 'goodness of fit' model clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian pyramids were produced by non-Egyptians, although we cannot be sure if these non-Egyptians were aliens or simply foreigners who arrived from Atlantis.
False A 'goodness of fit' model clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians without the help of outsiders. Archaeology has shows the development of the idea within Egyptian society, tools that Egyptians used to carve the stones and measure the geometry, graffiti that some of the workers left behind, where the workers slept and ate, and more.
If the evidence "cuts both ways" -both in support of and in rejection of an extraordinary claim - there is no way to come to a conclusion. One must remain open-minded.
False An extraordinary claim must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence in support of that claim. If the evidence "cuts both ways," then there is not extraordinary support for the claim. Thus you should reject the extraordinary claim.
The founder of Body Glove and a professional diver, Bob Meistrell, together with Amateur Historian and Organic Chemist Lee propose a pre-Columbus Chinese discovery of American. Nautical Archaeologist Larry Pierson and Art historian and East Asian Studies professor Jenny Purtle argue that it's not possible and that the most logical explanation for the stone anchors is 19th century Chinese fishing. Both sides bring compelling evidence to the debate. Without knowing more, it is thus impossible for you to know which argument is more probable.
False If you don't know anything about the claim, then side with the experts who have credentialed expertise in the field. In this case, the experts are the archaeologist and the art historian.
Most ancient cultures were culturally static. That is to say, if left to their own devices, without foreign interference, they would have changed very little through time.
False Most cultures are constantly changing, learning, developing and evolving. A culture that doesn't learn and change, will go extinct.
Rosenfeld, Canadian Archivist for the Royal Canadian Astronomical Society, says that there's an 80% chance that the Vinland map is a fake and a 20% chance it's real. This is an appropriate use of statistics because these percentages are based on quantitative (things that you can count) data.
False These percentages reflect his gut feeling and are not based on quantifiable data. 'Gut feelings' do not qualify as good evidence.
_________Based on historical descriptions of cider presses, its context within a colonial farm, other examples of 18th and 19th century cider presses, , and other examples of similar flat stones carved in such a way to enable liquid collection, a convergence of evidence suggests that the "sacrificial table" is a cider press.
Feder
The cultural context in which the Cardiff Giant was believable included
Findings of fossils of extinct megafauna so that it was not out of the realm of possibility that there had once also existed giant humans. It was presented as evidence that supported a literal interpretation of the Bible. It was presented as visual evidence - one could see and experience for one-self. All choices are correct
Assessing Expertise: Why do you think the video begins with a quote from the Old Testament? (Hint, how does the filmmaker's inclusion of this quote relate to something discussed in this unit?)
For believers in the stories of the Old Testament, it creates a social context of belief. Think about it as setting up the social conditions for belief for believers. For non-believers, it's so small they probably didn't even notice it. In this case, you probably should think of the biblical stores as more "anecdotal: evidence than hard facts.
After reading Chapter 10 in Feder, does the evidence for indigenous development (that native Egyptians built the Egyptian pyramids, that native Mayans built the Mayan pyramids and created the Mayan calendar, etc.), better fit MIGRATION THEORY or a GOODNESS OF FIT model?
Goodness of Fit model
Why is Tutankhamen so famous?
His was the only unlooted pharoah's tomb ever discovered thus far by archaoeologists. The Rosetta Stone is what enable us to translate hieroglyphics. Tut, himself, only lived and ruled as the Egyptian king for a very short period of time. In fact, his rule seems to have accomplished to little that there is almost no information about it. Historians weren't even sure that he really existed until his tomb was found. Kind of ironic that he only became famous in death!
Provide an example of when, looking at it now, you can see how you may have made a "mistake" in your thinking (see Kida's 6 mistakes we make in our thinking) or relied on mistaken information that you thought was reliable? MAKE SURE TO MENTION WHICH MISTAKE YOU MADE! (if you really can't think of one, then make up a hypothetical situation that would fit one of the mistakes).
I think I have made the mistake of seeking to confirm a lot in my life, especially with social media. Scrolling through Instagram, TikTok, FaceBook I use those to confirm the beliefs and values that I have, especially politically. There is other information out there that can combat that information but if I do see it I scroll through it and assume it's fake or don't even make the effort to look for other information, facts, explanations, or reasons for things. I am definitely guilty of only accepting information that confirms my ideas and beliefs, when there is so much out there and I am holding myself back from seeing the whole picture.
With which of the "mistakes we make in our thinking" does your example best fit?
I think of the 6 mistakes, my example best fits the mistakes of seeking to confirm and oversimplifying. At first, I didn't believe the claims that were made against Nike and Lebron James, because they didn't match my beliefs and opinions on Lebron James and Nike. Although digging deeper into the subject it became harder and harder to disregard the information about him that didn't align with my beliefs. I mean I use to love the man, I would get into arguments with people about him all the time, defending him at all costs. I think the other mistake that I made was oversimplifying the matter, I just assumed the information was wrong and that Lebron James was stating the truth, and I was ignorant because I didn't have a lot of knowledge or information on the labor problems in China. Therefore, I just believed everything Lebron James said to be true, but again what does he know about the labor issues in China? He isn't an expert.
IF Egypt and Mesoamerica shared a common origin, THEN what types of things would we expect to find in both places?
If Egypt and Mesoamerica shared a common origin we would expect to find similar artifacts or some type of evidence that suggested they originated from the same place maybe through cultural practice or other practices. For example, the Mayan hieroglyphic writing system left written works in the form of relief carvings, paintings, and books called codices. On the other hand, in Egypt, they kept daily logs kept on papyrus scrolls. If these two civilizations came from the same origin we would expect to see more similarity between the two, therefore both civilizations kept daily logs on a papyrus scroll and are found to be quite similar, or vice versa they both used a hieroglyphic system with many similarities and left writings through carvings and paints, etc. The same can be said for the architecture of the pyramids of both civilizations and other structures of buildings, pottery manufactured in kins, the practice of burying the leader in a bedrock tomb and mastabas, agricultural practices, trading practices, economic systems, and more. If these two civilizations came from the same origin we would expect to find evidence of highly similar artifacts that lead us to believe that these two civilizations used the same kind of practices that originated from the same source. Some examples include language, arts, music, clothing styles, house styles, gods and religious ideologies, political ideologies, etc. Make sure to be specific and not cite things that are fairly generic, i.e. applicable to MOST civilizations so not useful as evidence that Egypt and Maya have shared origins. If you are unsure what I mean between general and specific cultural comparisons, you may want to re-read Feder pp. 94 on Tracing the Source and Chapter 10 sections on Egypt and the Maya. Remember, too, that if we only look at the similarities and not ALSO note the DIFFERENCES, then we may make the mistake of seeking to confirm. The Egyptian and Maya "pyramids" are a GREAT example of this!
North American mounds
In sum, we know A LOT about these early, Native American sites, but we tend to begin our study of North America with the arrival of Europeans. If we study earlier history than that, then it's European history (like Rome and Greece, Renaissance, etc.) and before that World History and Ancient Civilizations (usually Egypt and Mesopotamia and not including North America typically).
Like the Dendera lightbulb and other artifacts that are taken out of their ancient context and used to support the idea that our ancestors had access to technology far beyond what they were capable of at the time (and therefore that this technology was provided to them by aliens), one artifact that is often pointed to is the Baghdad BatteryLinks to an external site.. According to the Wikipedia page, what are the possible claims for this artifact?
It is a voltaic cell used for electrplating. It is a storage vessel for sacred scrolls.
Why do you think it's important to listen to credentialed experts? (You may also want to review Feder's discussion of experts and expertise in chapters 1 and 2).
It is very important to listen to credentialed experts because credentialed experts have a ton of experience and expertise in their given field and are more likely to not be wrong majority of the time. Although, as Feder says that the odds of them being wrong are not zero but they are probably pretty small. I think it is important to listen to credentialed experts because they are going to be more accurate; even though those who may not be experts can come up with great ideas and may not be wrong it is more likely for them to be than someone who has been trained in the field and has spent lots of time dedicating themselves to furthering their knowledge in the field. Although experts aren't always right, they are more often right than non-experts! So, if you are not an expert, it's better to accept what one is saying than to follow someone else's opinion as that person may have no expertise in the area. Thus their opinion is just that - an opinion. Often pseudo-scientists will present their argument based on the idea that even the experts don't agree. Remember, just because the experts might not agree, does not open the door to outrageous claims by the pseudo-scientists! Sometimes the pseudo-scientists will say that the experts are ignoring key pieces of information. This is often because the experts have already REJECTED that data. All this is to say - it's always best to trust the experts over the non-experts!
What was the harm in the Piltdown hoax?
It sent scientists in the wrong direction in the investigation of human evolution
The Dendera "lightbulb" is refuted by
Its interpretation as an Egyptian creation myth involving a lotus flower and snake No other evidence of electrical lighting anywhere in ancient Egypt The fact that there are many examples of oil lamps found in Egyptian buildings All answers are correct
This is a bit old news (she has since divorced her pirate ghost). https://www.thesun.ie/news/2046453/smitten-louth-mum-45-ditches-real-life-men-and-marries-a-300-year-old-pirate-ghost-and-insists-sex-with-a-spirit-goes-a-lot-deeper/Links to an external site. LIST some examples where her "logic" causes here to accept only information that supports her ideas and reject information that doesn't?
Jack can make lights flicker and turn on stereos, when there are many other explanations for why those things may happen like overloaded circuits, loose wires, and more but she chooses to only accept that it is Jack because it confirms her beliefs. Her daughter having dreams of what Jack wants to buy her for birthdays and Christmas, but the daughter's dreams could be explained through talking and thinking about Jack at home could cause her to dream about him and could potentially all just be in her head or subconscious. She also assumes that the advertisement on her facebook page for 45 euros for the coffee maker she wanted and that Jack would get for her is accurate because she doesn't take into account the situations that are coincidence vs. not coincidence and only accepts that Jack did created that situation on her FB page when there could be many other explanations. For example, she is selling something for exactly that price and she could be creating this scenario in her head for this to happen and not realize she is creating the situation herself. She claims that knows her is has a different view of her not being a "nut job" but she goes on to say that she is apart of a spiritual community that are like-minded individuals. So she surrounds herself with people that confirm her beliefs.
One of the types of evidence used to support the pot and rod as a "battery" is that scientists tried it and it worked. Although archaeologists use experimental archaeologyLinks to an external site. all the time to investigate the function of ancient artifacts, what do you see as some of the pitfalls in this type of "evidence"?
Just becasue it can be done, doesnt' mean that people in the past did it. becauseTrying to prove, not test, the hypothesis. Thus falling for the mistake of seeking to confirm. Experimental archaeology can be kind of like searching for the answer to PROVE your point not TESTING your hypothesis. For example, they probably tested every possible outcome until they came across one that worked. This use of trial and error until you hit on something that works is a classic example of trying to prove your point (instead of testing a hypothesis). As we say, just because WE can do it, doesn't mean that THEY did it. So what we're saying here is that just because we CAN do it (as in, we experimented and it worked the way we thought it would) doesn't mean that THEY did it in the past! This type of thinking can lead to seeking to confirm.
According to Feder, what makes for a successful hoax?
Learn from your mistakes Give the people what they want Don't be too successful All choices are correct
From where did some of the early New World explorers believe the Native Americans had originally come?
Lost merchants from Carthage Atlantis Fleeing Spanish monarch All choices are correct
Pseudoarchaeology is harmful because
Many uninformed people are getting incorrect information about ancient artifacts and believing false information. Correct! It is placed in the genre of non-fiction, which could be misleading to readers and TV viewers. Correct! It discredits the hard work and efforts of our ancestors. Correct Answer It is ethno- and Euro-centric. The majority of examples are from non-European and non-North American sites, suggesting that only Africans, Asians and South Americans weren't smart enough and needed "help" from strangers to create their impressive achievements, while "Europeans" were able to do these things on their own. Correct Answer It is RACIST to deny indigenous communities the rights to their own heritage and history.
If this was a scientific (as opposed to pseudo-scientific) production based on an archaeological excavation, what type of experts would you expect to see highlighted in the show and how does this compare to the brothers' expertise? (You may want to refer back to some of the information on archaeology and its sub-disciplines as described in Module 2).
Missing from the team are trained professional archaeologists, historians, bioarchaeologists, and others who specialize in North American Archaeology. In sum, they would need trained, professional archaeologists, maybe one who specialized in North America, geologists (to study the soil), biological anthropologists, etc. These are all credentialed professions, none of whom are involved with this project. Review the list of archaeological specialty expertise in Module 1.
An example of cherry-picking (the selective presentation of data)
Monoliths have been found all over the world using GPS and satellite images and these monoliths have not only been used for what is there now, which is temples but contain megalithic structures. They use Baalbek as an example, which has stones that raise up several hundred feet and are put into place according to "ancient texts." They also suggest that it appears that those stones have been used as landing and taking-off platforms for spaceships. They also use Puma Punku as another example that has stone platforms made from "the gods of the sky", and they also state that they made it in one night. Then the god suddenly disappeared, but of course "with all of their equipment." This is a prime example of cherry-picking, they use these two locations that have stone platforms and suggest that they could have been used for taking off and landing platforms for spaceships. However, what other monoliths have structures with big stones? What other ancient sites with stone contain "evidence" of spaceship activity? They cherry-pick these locations because they can make a somewhat connection to these sites and the use of spacecraft through "ancient texts" or "local stories".
An example of an argument based on an unfounded assumption
NASA is infiltrated by three powerful secret societies: the freemasons, the Nazis, and the "magicians" (followers of Aleister Crowley). There is a pattern of them being "interested and stuff" and naming spacecraft after ancient Egyptian gods like the Apollo 16 lunar module was named Orion after the Egyptian god Osiris. It also suggests that since they landed on the moon on Hitler's birthday at the exact time that Orion's belt was degrees above the landing site it is "not a coincidence." This is an unfounded assumption because there is no foundation that NASA has been infiltrated by these three "powerful secret societies." There is no evidence to suggest this so the argument is based on this assumption that has not been proven to be true.
An example of searching for evidence to prove (not test) the claim
NASA is researching the ancient ruins of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. "It doesn't make sense for NASA to be going to a place like Chaco Canyon and be doing research for astronomical reasons." When NASA is "all about space. It's a space exploration agency of the U.S. government." NASA is looking into ancient advanced technology, there are massive rock paintings in the United States and midwest that are suggestive of nonhumans. This evidence is attempting to prove the claim, but is not testing the claim.
An example of a vague definition
NASA is using private industry and private space as a cover-up because when the government is taken out and private industry takes over it allows for them to do a lot more things behind the scenes because they do not have to answer to anybody (Billy Carson- Founder of 4bidden knowledge). How is NASA using private industry behind the scenes? Just because it is Space X is a private company does not mean it doesn't have rules and regulations from the government. They don't explain how NASA is using a private industry as a loop hole that just state that it is.
An example of someone stating that there is a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views
Nick Redfern (Researcher and UFO author) offers a conspiracy that maybe there weren't actual ancient extraterrestrials, but ancient humans who developed highly advanced technology. He also suggests that those ancient humans may have left the planet. The conspiracy that Redfern offers suppresses the dissenting views of ancient humans having primitive technology and materials. It not only suppresses that dissenting view but also the view building up in the video, until this point, that there were once extraterrestrials on Earth.
An example of a superficial comparison
Nick Redfern (Researcher and UFO author) suggests that since the CIA has declassified the "Ararat Anomaly", a file on Noah's Ark, it means that someone within the agency is "taking notes" on the ancient astronaut scenario and possibly interpreting it as a "space ark." He suggests that someone within an intelligence agency knows or deeply suspects that there were ancient alien visitations. He goes on to say that "that explains what NASA is up to today, looking at, marking, and targeting ancient cities." This is a superficial comparison because he compares the CIA's investigation of the "Ararat Anomaly" to NASA's investigation into ancient sites. This comparison lacks depth in the knowledge and reasoning between the two organizations. Exactly how do they relate to one another? This comparison is shallow because how does he know that the CIA interprets Noah's Ark as a potential "space ark" and lacks reasoning as to why the CIA file has to do with NASA looking into ancient sites?
Has any evidence for any of these "electric" artifacts been found in Ancient Mesopotamia (according to the wikipedia page)?
No
We often believe an authority figure, even if they are not an expert in field they are talking about. For example, when we believe what an athlete or famous actor says about something other than sports or acting! What's an example of a time you believed what an authority figure said, just because that person was a figure of authority (or looked like a figure of authority) even though they were not an expert in that field?
One prime example for me is Lebron James, an NBA star. He is very outspoken about lots of events and current issues. One is child labor in China. He has brought attention to the subject, tried to bring about social justice, and made it very clear that he cares. Once I heard this I thought it was great, I completely believed him and was ready to get behind his movement. However, researching deeper into the matter I found that his sponsor, Nike, is allegedly using slave labor to produce its goods in China. I believed in Lebron James because he is a famous athlete who is very vocal about a lot of issues and many people stand by his movements. However, what does he know about labor issues in China? Does he know that Nike, his sponsor, may be utilizing this type of labor? He isn't an expert in that field, so why should I believe him?
Interpretations of anomalous rock formations as alien constructions are best attributed as examples of
Pareidolia
Science progresses by
Repeated testing and revising of hypotheses
Which of the claims, skull binding or extra-terrestrials, best meets the criteria of "fewest assumptions required to be a probable interpretation" (Occam's Razor)?
Skull Binding
Given your answers to the questions above, according to Occam's Razor (the claim with the fewer assumptions is probably the correct one), which of the claims for the Baghdad battery is more probable:
The "Baghdad battery" is a storage vessel for sacred scrolls.
A false dichotomy is a form of bad logic where an argument is presented as if there are only two sites - either/or. One side is rejected. The other side is then presented as the possible conclusion, when, in reality, this second side has not been presented as true. In other words, just because one side of the argument or interpretation is proven wrong, does not automatically make the other one true. Can you spot the false dichotomy in this foxnews article? WHICH OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW BEST STATES THE FALSE DICHOTOMY? (HINT: make sure you choose the "false dichotomy" and NOT what you think is the better explanation for the blurry image) https://www.foxnews.com/science/titanic-ghost-spotted-couple-photobombed-by-supposed-captain-of-ill-fated-ship-at-famous-pubLinks to an external site.
The blurry image in the photograph can't be explained so it must be a ghost. The false dichotomy is that just because the blurry picture can't be explained, they suggest it's a "ghost" as the other alternative. But "ghost" has not been proven. There are LOTS of other possible explanations than unexplained = ghost! Furthermore, just because one part of the argument is disproved, does NOT make the other part true. BOTH parts need to be proven!
Elongated and strange-looking skulls like these are often used to suggest that aliens once walked among us and/or bred with humans creating a new human/alien species. Below are two hypotheses - one that elongated skulls are a form of skull binding that is practiced in a number of different cultures and one that it is associated with "non-human" DNA and therefore represents "something else". Based on what you've learned in class so far, answer the question: I should trust the interpretation of Skull binding over extra-terrestrials because: explain why skull binding requires fewer assumptions (Occam's razor) than extra-terrestrials and is therefore the more plausible claim. HInts: Do the people making the claims (the scientists and doctors, not the people who are simply reporting the information) have credentials? Can anyone check the data for oneself? In other words, have they put their data in a place that is publicly accessible so that other people can check their work (remember that the scientific methodLinks to an external site. includes that the evidence must be "reproducible" - that other specialists looking at the data should come to the same conclusions)? Is the data published in a reputable or referred source? Do the fact that these two different ideas are published in different types of media assist in identifying between the pseudo-science and the science? https://www.livescience.com/alien-skulls-hungarian-graveyard.html?utm_source=notificationLinks to an external site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QnF_RvEaAgLinks to an external site.
The people making the skull binding claims are archaeologists Correct! The people making the skull binding claims publish their data in refereed publications Correct! The explanation for skull binding fits with what we know of these cultures. Correct! The alien theory is published only in social media Correct! The alien theory is supported only by non-credentialed people Correct! The people supporting the alien theory are not willing to share their DNA data for all to see and make their own determinations of what the DNA says. We have to trust their interpretations. The people making the skull binding claims are archaeologists, they publish their data in refereed publications and the explanation fits with what we know of these cultures. The alien theory is published only in social media, by non-credentialed people who are not willing to share their DNA data for all to see.
Both hypotheses are presented in Wikipedia as if they are of equal validity (actually, to me it seems slightly biased to the "battery" identification). Based on what you've learned in class so far, explain why the scroll jar claim requires fewer assumptions than the battery claim (Occam's razor) and is therefore the more plausible claim.
The scroll jar claim requires fewer assumptions because there have been many objects found similar to this object that was believed to be storage vessels for sacred scrolls. The battery theory assumes many things, firstly that the people in this region and time could electroplate even though there aren't other artifacts like this that have been found to be used for electroplating. Secondly, it assumes that the electrolytes in this time and region available, which were very feeble, could be used to perform electroplating (even when Eggebrecht used a more efficient and modern electrolyte to electroplate in his example). Lastly, the battery assumes that even if the people during this time and region did electroplate, they actually did even though there has been no other evidence found that leads to this conclusion. The battery hypothesis starts with a conclusion and works backward to try to prove this conclusion, which is a telling sign of pseudoscience and a pattern of evidence. The battery hypothesis consists of outrageous and controversial claims and they cherry-pick evidence to try to prove this claim, which again are patterns of evidence. The scroll jar has far fewer assumptions because there has been evidence of this kind of object found in nearby regions used during that time that suggest that they were used as storage vessels for scrolls. This theory follows the evidence where it leads, which is more along the lines of science. Overall, the scroll jar hypothesis requires fewer assumptions which makes it the more plausible claim. The claim that it is a scroll jar requires only that we accept that they had scrolls and kept them in jars, for which we have evidence. We have no evidence that they used or understood batteries and electricity. ALSO don't forget that one of our mistakes is that we rarely recognize coincidences. One explanation for the pot, copper and iron found together is that it's simply a coincidence.
What is epistemology?
The study of knowledge (how we know what we know)
An example of where they are relying on your ignorance of something.
The video presents "evidence" of an object on Phobos that was made famous because Buzz Aldrin came out in an interview on c-span in 2009 and said that there is a "monolith on Phobos." They suggest that the shape and the design "seams to be to attract energy from above, or in other words to attract all the powers out there in the stars." This evidence relies on the viewer's ignorance because the majority of the viewers watching this video most likely don't know about the "monolith" on Phobos, or what the significance or purpose of monoliths or their shape and design of them, or what they even look like. They present a picture of the "monolith" on Phobos and it is a blurry image that just looks like a splotch, so how does that prove it even is a monolith? They rely on the viewer's lack of information or knowledge of monoliths.
The brothers state they are "experts" in Giants. What kind of education, experience and/or credentials do they have that demonstrates their expertise in Giants? (for example, I have a BA in history (economics minor) from Georgetown University and an MA and PhD in Near Eastern/Ancient Middle East and Biblical World Studies (Archaeology), with a concentration in Archaeological Anthropology from the University of Arizona. Before offering me this job, ECU checked my credentials as proof of my expertise).
They are stonemasons and history buffs
"Space Archaeology" is a new field of archaeology that uses satellite imagery to see below the modern ground surface.
True
A 'goodness of fit' model clearly demonstrates that Stonehenge was part of a broad cultural context that included people who lived in the area at nearby sites like Durrington Walls.
True
A hoax is more easily accepted as truth when it support already accepted social beliefs.
True
Because universal laws do not change under ordinary circumstances (they are immutable), scientists can make predictions about what will happen in the future.
True
Due to archaeology's ability to study places far removed from us in time and geography, theoretical archaeology has much to contribute to the search for extra terrestrials.
True
Information sources such as our own personal experiences and observations, our family and friends, and various social media sources like tictok and instagram are non-scientific methods of knowledge acquisition.
True
Just because Indians were not building mounds when Europeans arrived doesn't mean that their ancestors weren't the builders of the mounds.Just because Indians were not building mounds when Europeans arrived doesn't mean that their ancestors weren't the builders of the mounds.
True
Migration theory suggests that a new people can be recognized in the archaeological record by the sudden, intrusive appearance of foreign (i.e. non-local) material culture.
True
Science is a method to investigate the world around us. Because it is a tool, science cannot be right or wrong. Only what it is trying to test can be proven right or wrong.
True
Seeking to confirm is one of the Mistakes we make in our thinking.
True
The only evidence or proof offered that supports the hypothesis that the flat stone slab is a sacrificial altar is that it looks like what one would expect a sacrificial altar to look like.
True
It is generally recognized that Plato's contemporaries knew that the story of Atlantis was just a story. It was only much later, when the New World was discovered, suggesting that there may also be other "new worlds" out there, that people began to question the veracity of Atlantis as just a story.
True It was around the time of the discovery of the New World, during what's been called the "Age of Exploration," that it also became popular to try to "find" Atlantis (see Feder pg. 181).
An example of justifying an historical reconstruction based on diffusion is using cultural comparisons to demonstrate that the Maya and Egyptians are similar in culture because they both built pyramids
True Diffusion argues that something was only invented one time and then spread out from there to everywhere else where it is found. In this example, a diffusionist would say that the Egyptians invented the pyramid and then brought that idea to the Maya (something we know to be untrue).
Whether or not Plato's description of Atlantis is based on fact, if Plato describes Atlantis as located by the "Pillars of Hercules" (between Spain and Morocco), identifying a sunken anomaly off the coast of California, in the Bermuda Triangle, in Israel or in Antarctica as Atlantis is cherry-picking the information.
True It is cherry-picking because each location fits only some of the criteria. For example, coast of California is not by the Pillars of Hercules. Israel is not either and it's also not an island.
A 'goodness of fit' model clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian pyramids were the product of independent invention and not diffusion from an unknown and unrecognized source.
True The pyramids "fit" economically, historically, ideologically, socially, etc. into everything we know that was going on in Egypt at the time they were built. It is clear that they are a part of Egyptian culture at the time.
Most of the people supporting the various locations for Atlantis are authors, with little to no credentials in archaeology or history.
True Think about what credentials make one an "expert" in their field. Are any of these people historians or archaeologists?
This film is an example of pseudo-science because it fits all or most of the patterns of evidence or Feder's pseudo-science checklist items Download Feder's pseudo-science checklist items, which are used to evaluate pseudo-scientific claims.
True; This assignment asked you to find examples of almost every point on the "patterns of evidence" check list for determining if something is pseudo-science. These provide a means to recognize the formula that is used over and over again in pseudo-scientific media. Recognizing the formula is half the battle in determining fact vs. fiction. Refer back to module 1 and Feder chapter 1 for a review if you still don't understand the "patterns of evidence".
This artifact purported to tell the story of how the ancient Lenape (Delaware) Indians came to the New World over the Bering Land Bridge from Asia
Walam Olum
Using Feder's Pseudoscience Cheat Sheet (in your textbook) or the CRAP test, which of the two claims, water turning into metal or flat earth, should you accept as good and trustworthy information based on your critical analysis of the sources provided?
Water-turning-metal Water-turning-metal scientists are credentialed scientists, they are using the scientific method and they published in a peer reviewed journal (referenced as a link in this Livescience article). Their experiments are reproducible. The ghost and flat-earth stories are based on anecdotal evidence and misperception. Be careful about: Trusting only what you see. Remember, one of the mistakes we make in our thinking is that we misperceive our world. Assuming that charismatic (but non-credentialed) people are correct, One of the mistakes we make in our thinking is that we tend to listen to authority figures, even if that authority figure is not an expert in the field in which they are advising. Furthermore, one of the techniques of pseudo-scientists is that they rely on our ignorance. Relying on feelings, emotions, and intuitions (for example, when you think "I feel like this is right" or "it sounds right to me") as these feelings and emotions are easily manipulated by the mistakes we make in our thinking.
According to Kida, which IS NOT one of the six mistakes we make in our thought processes?
We are born liars
Based on a video captured on her security camera, a woman in Florida reports that a real live dinosaur ran across her front lawn in the middle of the night. In all likelihood, this woman is falling for which mistake we make in our thinking?
We misperceive our world
Last fall, this video, caught on CCTV, of a family's dog playing in their backyard with a "ghost dog," went viral! Which mistake in their thinking is the family making? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QepTPAe33ILinks to an external site.
We misperceive our world. Yes, humans have the capability of imagining the impossible - but this is a GOOD thing, NOT one of the mistakes we make in our thinking. We use our ability to imagine the impossible to create all kinds of new inventions and new solutions to problems. HOWEVER, just because we can imagine it, does NOT make it real. In this example, just because it might "look like" a ghostly image, it doesn't mean that it IS a ghost!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/baby-dinosaur-video-florida-yard-b1863667.htmlLinks to an external site. This Florida woman is convinced that her security video shows a small dinosaur running through her front yard in the middle of the night. Which mistake in her thinking is she making?
We misperceive our world. Every time the article mentions that she and her neighbors are "believing what they are seeing" tells you that they are relying on their own observations, which can often be incorrect. Remember, just because you see a fluffy bunny in a cloud does not mean that there IS a fluffy bunny in the clouds! (i.e. just because something LOOKS LIKE something else, does not mean that it IS!).
Which of the 6 mistakes is she making?
We seek to confirm, she only accepts information that confirms her beliefs and rejects information that doesn't (confirmation bias) We rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence (specifically with the coffee maker scenario that Jack creates a scenario where he gets the money for her on her FB page) We can misperceive our world (she assumes things are Jack when there may be other reasons as to why she sees and feels the things that she does) We prefer stories to statistics (She ignores facts that could explain things and accepts anecdotal evidence) We over simplify (She assumes things are simply just Jack when things could happen or be explained through other causes and explanations) She hits just about every one of the 6 mistakes, such as not recognizing coincidences! The fact that she believes the ghost can find money for "gifts" but can't help with the rent is a great example only accepting data that supports one's preconceived ideas and rejecting data that doesn't.
When people cherry pick the evidence, they are likely to fall under which mistake we make in our thinking?
We seek to confirm. When people cherrypick, they only accept the information that supports their pre-conceived ideas and reject or disregard the information that does not fit their ideas.
When people cherry pick the evidence, they are likely to fall under which mistake we make in our thinking?
We seek to confirm. When people cherrypick, they only accept the information that supports their pre-conceived ideas and reject or disregard the information that does not fit their ideas.
_________Based on other finds of ancient sacrificial tables in Europe, human blood residue on the stones and butchered human bones, bronze daggers used for sacrifice, the ceremonial context in which the stone was found, and illustrations of human sacrifices associated with Irish monks (and Phoenician sailors), a convergence of evidence suggests that the flat slab of stones at Mystery Hill is a sacrificial altar.
Wolter
Have things like storage vessels, scrolls and writing on scrolls been found?
Yes
Newly discovered ancient bio-engineered hybrid animal discovered in Mesopotamia screams the headlines. This story was picked up in LivescienceLinks to an external site., NewScientistLinks to an external site., and the New York TimesLinks to an external site. (sometimes NY Times article look like they are behind a paywall, but you can often sign up to receive 3 per month for free). Looking at the photograph, it definitely looks "alien". But is it? Why should you accept this new archaeological find? Use the methods and tools you've learned so far, is it possible to accept the claim that 4500 years ago, humans living in Syria were advanced enough to bio-engineer a new animal species? (note, there may be more than 1 correct answer).
Yes, it is possible to accept this claim because the scientists making the claim are experts in their field. Yes, it is possible to accept this claim because the popular articles are based on an original article that was published in a refereed journal.
Bob Meistrell, founder of Body Glove, stating that he wants to find out what the stone anchors are before he dies, even after he is presented with the evidence that the stones are from 19th century Chinese fisherman, is an example of Correct!
a disregard for alternative explanations and excepting only that information that supports what we already believe This is really just an example of 'seeking to confirm'. Meistrell is refusing to accept the evidence that doesn't mesh with what he already believes.
Much of what we think we know comes from
our experiences our personal observations our social networks our media exposure
If this is a storage vessel for scrolls, what else would you expect to find?
storage vessels scrolls evidence of writing on scrolls in Mesopotamia
The Piltdown fossil was undetected for so long because
the scientists involved believed in their friend, Charles Dawson it confirmed the early human traits that scientists expected to find Nationalistic pride that human evolution took place in England, not Africa All choices are correct
An example of an early construction that shows the evolution of pyramid building
the stepped pyramid of Djoser
The curse of Tutankhamen
was made up by a newspaper to whip up public interest and sell papers.
According to the essay, When the World Seems like One Big Conspiracy Theory, people are attracted to conspiracy theories because they seem to offer simple, straightforward explanations for what are often complicated situations. This way of thinking false under which of the mistakes we make in our thinking?
we oversimplify
Compare the assumptions required for the Baghdad battery with another unusual archaeological find, the Antikythera mechanismLinks to an external site.. Tne Antikythera mechanism is considered by many to the the first analogue computer! It was found in a shipwreck in the Mediterranean and dates to approximately 205-87 BCE. Skim over the wikipedia page to see if you can recognize some information written there that suggests you should believe that the Antikythera mechanism IS a real product of its time (as opposed to the Baghdad Battery). Here is another article on the Antikythera mechanism.Links to an external site. Some things that help archaeologists recognize the Antikythera Mechanism as a product of its time include:
written records and texts from the same time period suggest that astronomers at that time were studying similar planetary orbits and theories as illustrated with the mechanism. Correct! the mechanism also relates to contemporary information on calendars in Babylon and Egypt. Correct! there are also texts that describe similar mechanisms, so there were probably others that have not been preserved. Correct! even the fact that the mechanism didn't work all that well, which is directly a result of it being built upon earlier (now corrected) knowledge and engineering, suggests that it is a real product of it's time. Some things that help archaeologists recognize the Antikythera Mechanism as a product of its time include: written records and texts from the same time period suggest that astronomers at that time were studying similar planetary orbits and theories as illustrated with the mechanism. the mechanism also relates to contemporary information on calendars in Babylon and Egypt. there are also texts that describe similar mechanisms, so there were probably others that have not been preserved. even the fact that the mechanism didn't work all that well, which is directly a result of it being built upon earlier (now corrected) knowledge and engineering, suggests that it is a real product of it's time. Ironically, given its inaccuracies, if it WAS an alien invention, then it would appear that aliens were pretty bad astronomers and engineers and thus unlikely to have successfully piloted themselves to different planets!
