the lost millenium

[egb_hibs]

while browsing through amazon i came across this series of books:

history - fiction or science

which i took to be a hysterical zenith of the kind of counterknowledge i am fond of panning. it's a seven volume set that has a basic premise that 1000 years or so of our calendar is 'missing', that the time of Jesus was really the 11th century, mohammed was about in the 14th and so on.

i took it to be the usual madness when i read something about the jesuits having fabricated our standard historical chronology.

but then i found this:

the lost millenium

which references these books. this one is written by, apparently, a serious mathemitician (he was some other heavyweight tomes on calculus on amazon) and some of the quotes about it are indeed (if wikipedia is to be believed) from real princeton academics.

it's arguing much the same thing - and when i read a bit more, both books are based on alleged scientific data - astronomical records etc - and how it corresponds with recorded history.

has anybody else heard of this 'theory'? it sounds like humbug, but fantastic humbug to me.

i'm almost tempted to buy diacu's book even though i now generally try to avoid encouraging this quack industry.

but this premise is just so hysterically far fetched i have to admit it's sheer chutzpah has engaged my imagination.

[HenryLB]

That's nothing. There's some bird wandering about on Mars!

[snoots]

I've heard of the theory. One guy I read on it was almost convinced but Carbon Dating evidence changed his mind. Sounds a bit fruit casey really.

[snoots]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

That's nothing. There's some bird wandering about on Mars!

Must be a Geordie bird going out in the cold like that!

[Colr]

Under this theory, where the Romans still in Britain when the Normans arrived, then?

[Bartok]

See I think there is a value in stuff like this that is being overlooked in all the gnashing of teeth and rending of raiment over 'counter-knowledge', and that is the value of evidence. It encourages people to look for evidence and weigh up the claims made. They are sceptical, less likely to accept anyone's word for something. It makes them less susceptible to propaganda and spin, and more likely to form opinions for themselves.

And, defenders of democracy, isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?

[snoots]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

See I think there is a value in stuff like this that is being overlooked in all the gnashing of teeth and rending of raiment over 'counter-knowledge', and that is the value of evidence. It encourages people to look for evidence and weigh up the claims made. They are sceptical, less likely to accept anyone's word for something. It makes them less susceptible to propaganda and spin, and more likely to form opinions for themselves.

And, defenders of democracy, isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?

Great post.Taking someone else's word for every single historical find isn't learning anything.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

See I think there is a value in stuff like this that is being overlooked in all the gnashing of teeth and rending of raiment over 'counter-knowledge', and that is the value of evidence. It encourages people to look for evidence and weigh up the claims made. They are sceptical, less likely to accept anyone's word for something. It makes them less susceptible to propaganda and spin, and more likely to form opinions for themselves.

And, defenders of democracy, isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?

i purchased the book 'counterknowledge' today. i will report back once i've read it but the first chapter, in introducing the topic, cites as it's complaint, not the exchange of ideas, but a deterioration in enlightenment values of the scientific method / evidentiary based processes etc.

he uses a definition of 'false' propositions (i don't know if it is his or if this is an 'accepted' defintion) as being not only that which is demonstrably untrue, but also that which is not supported by any evidences which makes it even slightly probable.

the implication of this is that, say, scholars are under no obligation to disprove that atlantis is underneath the polar ice cap, unless there is a body of substantive evidence that suggests it may possibly be.

i suspect this stuff might lack such evidence. but i'm intrigued enough that i might read it some time.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

Under this theory, where the Romans still in Britain when the Normans arrived, then?

no - it's rather (i think) that the gap between the two is smaller than we believe. essentially he gets rid of the dark ages i think, and thus collapses the timeframe of european civilisation.

[AndyM]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

no - it's rather (i think) that the gap between the two is smaller than we believe. essentially he gets rid of the dark ages i think, and thus collapses the timeframe of european civilisation.

Sounds quite mental stuff.
I would really struggle with the general concept of dumping (or shrinking) the dark ages as there are quite a few things that are known or at least deductable from that period as defined here by the Encyclopedia of the downright plain lazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

Will be interested to hear what you think of it

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

no - it's rather (i think) that the gap between the two is smaller than we believe. essentially he gets rid of the dark ages i think, and thus collapses the timeframe of european civilisation.

So what dates are missing?

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Colr

So what dates are missing?

A fair bit of Friday night's missing, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by snoots

Must be a Geordie bird going out in the cold like that!

According to NASA she's only two inches tall as well. And most likley made out of Martian rock.