Real historians are careful to examine all the evidence relevant to a given event or idea and to ensure all explanations for that evidence are given due consideration and weight. They try to ensure they don't give too much emphasis to one explanation simply because they find it appealling and rather make sure their final analysis can be sustained as the argument to the best explanation rather than simply the argument that they like the most. Or the one that will sell the most popular books.
Von Däniken is notorious for presenting selective evidence, only focusing on anything that he thinks seems to support his thesis, while ignoring counter evidence or alternative explanations. Where real historians present alternative arguments carefully and fairly and then explain why they feel theirs is more likely to be correct, Von Däniken doesn't even bother to mention the alternatives and so only gives his readers the information that seems to support his ideas.
For example, Von Däniken claims the sarcophagus carving of the Mayan king Pakal in Palenque actually depicts an "ancient astronaut" reclining in the command module of a spaceship. To anyone with no knowledge of ancient Mayan art and no alternative explanations as to what this carving depicts that seems plausible, particularly since Von Däniken doesn't bother to tell his readers what actual scholars of Mayan civilisation have to say about this carving. In fact, every element in this depiction of the king comes from Mayan mythology and it actually shows him lying at the foot of the sacred cebia "world tree" and not in a spaceship at all. Real historians with an understanding of Mayan art can identify the cebia tree with its distinctive branches, the sacred bird at the top of the tree and the two headed snake entwined in the branches (which Von Däniken misinterpreted as exhaust fumes).
But Von Däniken is ignorant of all this and just sees what he wants to see. He also simply tells his readers what he wants them to believe and presents no critical analysis or careful critique of alternative explanations the way real historians do.
Real historians also work within a scholarly environment of peer review. This means that they formulate their ideas and their arguments in the knowledge that they will be subjected to careful and highly critical analysis by all the other experts in the field. And that means a historian has to be very careful that they cover all angles, take account of all alternative interpretations and are as thorough and careful as possible, heading off any potential objections with detailed argument and checking all facts. They then present their ideas to their expert peers at scholarly conferences, where their theories are discussed, analysed and critiqued. Weak ideas don't make it through this process. Those that do can then be written up as articles for scholarly journals, which subject all papers to anonymous review by experts in the field - they have to pass this scrutiny before they are published. The same goes for books by genuine historians, which have to pass rigorous peer review before publication. Finally, published books and articles get reviewed and responded to by other scholars and weak ideas get publicly torn apart.
Crackpots like Von Däniken avoid all this. All they need to do is convince some publisher that their theory will sell books to the public and then help the publisher to market their book to the widest audience possible. The people who buy books by people like Von Däniken are usually the ones least equipped to be able to see their flaws. Historians aim to advance knowledge and therefore advance their careers by coming up with ideas and interpretations that stand up to multiple layers of often savage critical scrutiny. Von Däniken aims to make money from ignorant gullible people with poor critical thinking skills.
So how do we know Von Däniken is wrong? Because people who practice real historical analysis have demolished this theory using the historical method and shown his arguments to be based on misinterpretations of carefully selected evidence. Or, in places, outright fraud. Anyone who takes Von Däniken seriously should google " Von Däniken debunked" and educate themselves.
Read other answers by Tim O'Neill on Quora:
- Why was Columbus's travel time approximation so bad?
- What is the most mundane use recorded in history of the most rare (expensive) object in history?
- Middle Ages: Was the ius primae noctis ever actually exercised?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2fdTvcl
No comments:
Post a Comment