I'm afraid the people who need to understand this topic are the ones who fight against it. In my view the main point is that it's OK to be wrong. A lot of people think that being wrong on a topic is worse than changing the way you think about a topic. I do wish more people were open to the concept that being wrong is fine, that you had reasons for the way you thought, and when those reasons changed so did your opinion of that topic. I still don't believe in the singularity even though it's scientific consensus, and I also have no problem changing my mind in the future when/if it's clear I was wrong. Nice vid, keep up the good work.
@davidmiller9485
2 жыл бұрын
being wrong is how we learn. Those who don't want to be wrong or go through contortions to not be wrong are never learning.
@plutoplanet4275
2 жыл бұрын
A mantra to live by "Changing your opinion in the face of new evidence, is about the most honest thing you can do"
@KamiRecca
2 жыл бұрын
An important thing to remember however is this: Having a Concencus does not mean It is True, only that it Seems to be the most likely true answer, according to the experts and the knowledge that they have at the time. True science can never find absolute truths, only less and less ways to be wrong :)
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
When you get closer to the end of the video, you will see that I agree with you. 🙂
@KamiRecca
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity hahaha my man, i never ever imagined you didnt. Im firmly placing you in the camp of "Real Science" :) But yea, i kinda wrote that in the middle of the video, and then found "Yea well of course he said it himself", but i dont like removing things i say, better to be judged supurflous (and without the ability to spell propperly, real life Rincewind right here) than curate and crop ones own statements. P.S Wonderful video, as always.
@kellyezebra
2 жыл бұрын
I think part of the problem people have with consensus is that so many of us are terrified to say (or hear said), “we just don’t know.” Every detail, no matter how unknown must be fleshed out regardless of the evidence. We definitely need to incorporate more tolerance of uncertainty into public education. Some of the best things I’ve ever learned followed me saying or hearing, “we just don’t know enough about this subject to form a conclusion. Let’s explore what is known and the consensus of the experts.”
@davidmiller9485
2 жыл бұрын
what's wrong with being wrong or not knowing. You can't know everything. I think the problem is just that people think they look stupid if they admit they are deficient in some way.
@b4r0n5a84n
2 жыл бұрын
You're good at getting these complex issues broken down into 'digestible' size pieces and keeping the topic entertaining for the layman. I appreciate what you are doing here. Thank-you very much Professor Miano.
@jsoth2675
2 жыл бұрын
Its been really cool watching this channel grow, 40k+ subs! Thanks again for your work and time. As an aside, I've seen many polls pop up on my feed, but im skeptical on how much of those percentages are just outright trolls.
@straightfrom
2 жыл бұрын
I think viewer consensus is that Dr. Miano is awesome and so is this channel.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Aw, shucks.
@waynegoddard4065
2 жыл бұрын
That IS the consensus and no mistake.
@philpaine3068
2 жыл бұрын
I just finished reading Cathy Gere's book "Knossos & the Prophets of Modernism". It chronicles the influence of the discoveries at Knossos on a host of prominent cultural figures, as well as the weird Victorian and Edwardian era ideas that influenced the archaeological project. It took quite a while for archaeology to develop from a hobby dominated by literary scholars and eccentric wealthy adventurers into an actual science, driven by objective data and the scientific method. Most of the pseudo-archaeological cranks you see in today's media are just exaggerated versions of the characters that dominated the field before WW1. They all share the Victorian Era's propensity to dream up a "story line" that satisfies emotions and preconceptions, and then try to stuff whatever they dig up in the field into their "story."
@BazNard
2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely loved this. Best channel ever.
@gerardtrigo380
2 жыл бұрын
I agree about doing the research yourself, but with the caveat that you have the tools and access to information to make a valid judgment.
@dennisosborne9993
2 жыл бұрын
Good morning Gerard
@lakrids-pibe
2 жыл бұрын
I would be very tempted to pick a joke option in such a poll.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe that explains it!
@waynegoddard4065
2 жыл бұрын
I feel the same but usually see the polls and take a second to read the options then answer almost instantly with my genuine answer and then move on with my life. Messing up polls IS fun though but depends on the author and the subject. I saw a poll on KZitem that was do you wipe or not and hundreds of people in the comment section explained the positives of not wiping. It was a pretty sick day of reading about poo.
@thelordandsaviorgigachadrr888
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity honestly probably due to you getting exposure on channels that involve more humor like Atun-shei, more people, who I would wager comprise teenagers and young adults like me, have come to your channel, but still maintain a level of humor where joke answers are very tempting. Also, the more absurd the wrong answers are, the more tempting they will be to click to be funny.
@TSZatoichi
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity - Always include a "bacon" answer to weed out those jokers.
@lakrids-pibe
2 жыл бұрын
I like to include answers such as "Intergalactic radioactive space gorilla", "I don't know/don't care/ask my husband", "Hail Hypno-Toad", etc etc. It filters out the goofballs - some of them at least. And I'm a goofball myself. But it also depends on the context, the atmosphere. If the chanel is filled with comments unironically arguing about Atlantis or flat earth, I like the straight, un-goofy answers.
@ralphyetmore
2 жыл бұрын
Astounding that you have to explain what a "consensus of experts" means, but I appreciate your efforts here. Thank you.
@jasondumb5706
2 жыл бұрын
I think a video about why and how alternative histories and theories are promoted and why they often find broad acceptance. Would be interesting. Great content
@JonBrownSherman
2 жыл бұрын
I defer to our highly esteemed Dr. Miano and I'm happy to let him do the research for us so we can get these great videos! Thank you for all your hard work, Doctor-Professor Miano!
@AncientAmericas
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making this video! I get so many similar objections in my video comments.
@Imperiused
2 жыл бұрын
This was a delightfully concise introduction of why the consensus matters, its truthfulness, and the relationship of the historian to the consensus. Also, don't be too distraught at some of the poll answers, Dr. Miano. I have a feeling that a majority of them were probably just bots.
@Jason-ms8bv
2 жыл бұрын
I support the general consensus that this is channel is a great resource!
@gregcampwriter
2 жыл бұрын
Consensus tells us what is the prevailing opinion at present. Consensus tells us how to bet if we don't have time to go into the subject in detail ourselves. Evidence tells us what's right.
@colinplatt1963
2 жыл бұрын
The consensus is not going to always be right, as this channel often points out, "history" is constantly in motion and is always being updated. That said, if I have a choice between a book printed by Oxford/Cambridge University Press or on Lulu, I'm going with the university publication, which will almost invariably have a better bibliography and notation system than anything self published. Bibliographies and referencing are important!
@mnomadvfx
2 жыл бұрын
Oh no, don't mention bibliographies and referencing! I'm getting PTSD over writing my masters dissertation just from reading that 😅😂😂😂
@colinplatt1963
2 жыл бұрын
@@mnomadvfx my humble apologies sir! I was just an undergraduate student, but even then, I sympathise with your reaction. Especially for referencing! Nightmare! But now, I just get to read, and relax!
@ecta9604
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve heard consensus in history often compared to consensus in palaeontology or geology or astronomy or evolutionary biology. In these sorts of sciences (unlike, say, in chemistry) it’s usually pretty much impossible to do replicable experiments in the lab - either the timescales are way too long, or you’d need lab equivalent that was freakishly massive, or whatever it is you’re investigating has already happened. Instead, these scientists rely on the interpretation of traces left behind by the vast processes that they study. Just as a geologist studying tectonics would interpret traces left behind by continental drift to come up with a theory regarding the shape of the last supercontinent, a historian might interpret traces left behind in legal documents to interpret how something like inheritance has changed over decades or centuries and use that to draw a conclusion about how family dynamics evolved in a certain culture. In these sorts of sciences replicability comes through devising thought experiments and having your peers come to the same conclusions as you did when they run through those thought experiments themselves. In history consensus is reached through similar means. This doesn’t necessarily mean that history is a science. But it does mean that some sciences make use of the historical method as much as they use the scientific method. Mostly I got this from a book called The Landscape of History by John Lewis Gaddis. Super interesting, do recommend to any of yez interested in the crafting of history and the historical method.
@stephengent9974
2 жыл бұрын
So in scientific enquiry we have the ability to continually retest based on what we currently know. So a new discovery may drastically change our views on a given subject. The point is we remain open minded to any new information .
@عبدالله-ن6ه2ص
2 жыл бұрын
I do not think that archaeologists are open to new or religious information, and this is a witness in the civilization of Madain Saleh, which they attributed to the Nabateans, and we know for sure that it is from the Thamud civilization. We know that they are dwellings, and archaeologists say that they are tombs We know they were tortured and they don't talk about it She is still called by her name in the Qur'an, and they deliberately ignore, etc.
@CharlieHustle1687
2 жыл бұрын
Support this man on Patreon!
@scotte-p7715
2 жыл бұрын
Great video! Thanks for posting.
@gregcampwriter
2 жыл бұрын
I try to exercise a policy of withholding judgment when I don't know enough to reach a conclusion myself. That is not always possible, but in many subjects, it's not necessary to take a stand on any particular position.
@welcometonebalia
2 жыл бұрын
Great topic, thank you. Even if I'm kinda afraid that most among those who get angry at the idea of historical consensus won't be convinced... That may be naive on my part, but I wonder if some "case study" (?) of one occurence where the consensus was successfully challenged, how, why and what were the consequences, could be of some help? That seems to be some key point to me, there are so many misconceptions about what "challenging the consensus" means.
@TheIncredibleMarsupial
2 жыл бұрын
Love the content Prof. Miano!
@devincanada9523
2 жыл бұрын
i think the others were trying to self exame and see were their short commings were so they honestly answered rather then answering just the right thing to do.
@TheParadoxy
2 жыл бұрын
I guess I took this question as descriptive rather than normative. Certainly I believe that I should defer to expert consensus, and I do when I'm aware of it. But typically if I don't have time to do the research, I'm also acting too lazy to figure out what the consensus is. I end up assuming that whatever my friends think on the issue is probably well informed. Hence, by answering that I defer to friends rather than deferring to consensus of experts, though I believe that is what I SHOULD do. Thanks so much for this and all of the other videos!!! They are always fun and informative!
@gregcampwriter
2 жыл бұрын
I see this come up often in discussions about whether or not Jesus was a historical figure. While it's possible that he was, the evidence turns out to be a lot thinner than "consensus" would suggest, and a lot of it is grounded on nothing more than tradition.
@MyMy-tv7fd
2 жыл бұрын
without challenge to the consensus no progress is possible - in history, archeology, or science. It is rare that everyone moves forward all together
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Ah, you didn't get to the end of the video!
@ivilivo
2 жыл бұрын
I wish to believe that the experts know their stuff.
@edgarsnake2857
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the sanity.
@promiscuous5761
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@waynegoddard4065
2 жыл бұрын
Quality channel!!!!!!!!
@mightyoaks77
2 жыл бұрын
I would always go with a mainstream general concensus of experts so long as the answer to the said question made sense and didn't take unrealistic leaps to arrive at the answer because most theory's by definition rely on conjecture to fill in the unknowns especially the further back into history we go and also when dealing with cultures and civilizations that left plenty of structures and archaeology but no written language or form of communication that can be learned or unpicked, I understand that some theory's can be educated and researched but still it's a theory. I've stated before that I'm not a conspiracy theorist or an ancient alien protagonist, but I must agree that some things are too easily assumed by the main stream that don't make sense to me, the tightly shaped blocks with stone pertrusions that were highlighted in South America ( I've watched your video on how you think they did it) but in fact are found all over the world and they are given differing dates some hundreds of years apart yet the style is almost identical and this at a time when the continents weren't supposed to be in touch with one another. I prefer to find a happy medium somewhere in between. And I haven't been anymore specific because I'm just putting my opinion out there so hopefully others can take a look for themselves. (That could of made another choice on your list!) Regards
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
*I would always go with a mainstream general concensus of experts so long as the answer to the said question made sense and didn't take unrealistic leaps to arrive at the answer* If the answer didn't make sense and it took unrealistic leaps, it wouldn't be the consensus. *because most theory's by definition rely on conjecture to fill in the unknowns especially the further back into history we go* Remember, in the video I said that, in order for a consensus to be reached, it can't rely on any assumptions without evidence to make it work. *and also when dealing with cultures and civilizations that left plenty of structures and archaeology but no written language or form of communication that can be learned or unpicked, I understand that some theory's can be educated and researched but still it's a theory.* No argument there. *I've stated before that I'm not a conspiracy theorist or an ancient alien protagonist, but I must agree that some things are too easily assumed by the main stream that don't make sense to me,* That's probably because you don't have all the facts. It is impossible for a consensus to be reached if there are unfounded assumptions. *the tightly shaped blocks with stone pertrusions that were highlighted in South America ( I've watched your video on how you think they did it) but in fact are found all over the world and they are given differing dates some hundreds of years apart yet the style is almost identical and this at a time when the continents weren't supposed to be in touch with one another.* This is a good example of reaching a conclusions without having all the facts. Close study of the objects reveals that they are not identical, and there are many other factors that help establish a date for construction that make a different date highly improbable.
@mightyoaks77
2 жыл бұрын
I disagree, like I said about the walls in South America, also the famous handbag symbol from messopatamia and deities from cultures around the world (although slightly different in some cases) the general concensus the accepted main stream view is that they some how developed these ideas, structures and drawings independently of one another now that in my opinion is rubbish versus the possibility they could of been in touch in a way we just haven't discovered yet. It's ok that we don't know everything and conjecture is OK too but evidence, whether we have discovered it or it's still out there is my guide. Like I said these are just my opinions, people can go and check all this out for themselves.
@mightyoaks77
2 жыл бұрын
I never said that the walls around the world are identical you never read my answer properly! Of course they will differ they are made from different stone and more than likely by different people. But the style is the same, yes I have done my homework and you have clearly missed the point, look at the style and the structures. I've been through hundreds of videos and photographs (that's right I've done my homework sir) and there is a clear style. I'm not qualified and I'm not an expert but yes I've studied it to the best of my abilities. As I said the leap to say they must of developed independently versus there could of been contact you or I don't yet know about I choose the latter but again I'm not fixed I'm willing to be wrong if the evidence points to the contrary and I don't think some are. Again my opinion!
@mightyoaks77
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity but somtimes the evidence isn't there but assumptions are still made. There is no evidence they developed independently, or that they had contact with each other its an unknown, conjecture either way is good but we don't know!
@mightyoaks77
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity the great pyramid was classed as a tomb for a long time withe no real evidence I'd call that unrealistic. I found out some of the stories in the bible were told thousands of years earlier in messopatamia on clay tablets but the concensus will tell you that's unrealistic yet there they are!
@dezukaful
2 жыл бұрын
This was really interesting !
@zam6877
Жыл бұрын
One of the most exciting phenomenon that can shape concensus is The build up of new data from many of sites...hinting the subtle interactions between farms, villages and cities...byfilling ingaps A more vivid picture may, hopefully, form
@mikeybj
Жыл бұрын
Thank you
@ytube777
2 жыл бұрын
Well said. The problem we have today is the public facing experts/representatives are drowned out by competing interests that are incentivised to monopolize the time of the viewer. People need to really understand the value of their time and seek out like minded persons.
@weltsauerstoff
Жыл бұрын
Very nice presentation. Maybe it would be interesting to present some recent examples, when the consensus was changed due to new evidence found. :)
@Potkanka
Жыл бұрын
Wait... that's right, the beginning of dissertations actually sounds like a nice place to find this stuff! (Bonus points for usually being online and for free.) The main problem is choosing the right dissertation I guess. It just seems that getting a textbook on a certain topic is more complicated because they're not in libraries as much as I'd expect and I don't necessarily want to buy it if it's just for my curiosity and I might not even want to read the whole thing but just certain parts.
@nancyM1313
2 жыл бұрын
Have a nice day😇
@ivokolarik8290
2 жыл бұрын
Great video
@JMM33RanMA
2 жыл бұрын
I almost always told my classes to ask questions and to ask other teachers or to research for themselves. This has gotten more difficult as the internet is where most students go for research and it is flooded with cranks, cultists and people who are ill-informed, anti-science, anti-expert, grand-standers, grifters etc. I Grew up in Massachusetts, so the public schools were excellent, the teachers had good credentials, and, likewise, my public college had mostly good scholars, with a few fairly poor ones. My 9th grade [I think] Ancient History textbook started with some pre-human and pre-civilization units. The teacher had us turn to the introduction which said something like: "The material in this textbook is in line with the general scientific consensus. It is based on scientific research and is subject to change if new information comes to light. If it disagrees with what your parents or religious teachers have told you, and you have questions, you should take it up with them." I may not remember the exact wording, but that content is what has informed my studies and teaching, as has the dictum of Leopold von Ranke, "Wir müssen Geschichte lehren, wie sie wirklich war!" That is, we must teach History as it really was, not as we want it to have been, and without propaganda. This is the kind of video that I would hope history students with questions find on the internet. Thanks for your wonderful work.
@maidende8280
2 жыл бұрын
MA public schools are NOT excellent. I’m sure there are worse elsewhere, but that doesn’t make them good.
@JMM33RanMA
2 жыл бұрын
@@maidende8280 Define excellent. In my case, as a professional [teacher and professor] it means that teachers are professional and do not inject their own religious and political opinions into their lessons. The lessons are based on valid, secular sources. Biology and history classes teach history and biology facts not religious opinions. The alternative is unprofessional and corrupt. Public schools serve all people, whose religious and political beliefs are not uniform. Evangelicals want the KJV Bible taught in Biology and history class, forcing their beliefs on others. They would be very angry if a teacher taught their kids Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Jewish or other religion's dogma. They refuse to treat others with the respect they demand for themselves. This proves that they are false Christians, see Matthew 7:12.
@maidende8280
2 жыл бұрын
@@JMM33RanMA Excellent = stimulating, inspiring, maximising student potential without suppressing creativity & critical thinking. That was not my experience in MA public school. Part of the problem is that public school is too broad & teaches to a low common denominator. The German system is much better because it separates students into 3 groups so the dumbest aren’t as left behind while the smartest aren’t as bored. What you described is the bare minimum for good teaching imo, & even that is hard to find especially in certain disciplines. Education, at all levels, has become increasingly politicised.
@JMM33RanMA
2 жыл бұрын
@@maidende8280 I have had college age European [including French, German and Swiss] students here in the US. I found out that my knowledge of their systems, through comparative ed classes in my university days, has become dated. The German and French higher education systems are moving toward the US system in SOME ways, but are still, IMO, better. Massachusetts has an HDI rank like Norway or Switzerland, high even for Europe, and is one of the US states with the highest percentage of the population having college/university education. This is likely reflected in the quality of the public schools, MA being ranked among the top five states. Strangely, the US educational "system's" greatest strength is also one of its greatest weaknesses. That is, it isn't a coherent system, but is highly decentralized, with states being autonomous, and local school districts having a lot of control. This is why a diverse district like mine has strictly secular education by highly qualified and well, if not highly, paid teachers, while Baptist majority [for example] areas in the south have poorly qualified, poorly paid teachers who teach Bible in history and biology classes. Europeans and others often view the US as they view their own relatively homogeneous [in culture, language, religion, etc.] countries, whereas, it is more like the EU, or like Italy, which can generally be said to have three distinct regions.
@maidende8280
2 жыл бұрын
@@JMM33RanMA I think we simply have fundamentally different perspectives re: education. More people going on to pursue higher education is a bad sign overall. I think only those with very high IQs, which naturally excludes most people especially most women, should pursue higher learning. I’m also opposed to public education at all levels, & multiculturalism. I don’t think European public schools are excellent either, FTR, so again, we are using different measuring sticks. I’m not sure I agree with you re: European universities. Virtually all higher ed is going in the wrong direction. I do agree those teaching in higher education should be better paid, though! Ofc, all of the aforementioned is my opinion.
@janbarsk3077
7 ай бұрын
I find this video sound and balanced, but it just outlines theoretically the concepts about how the historian ideally should work in an environment of ideal conditions and how consensus is ideally reached. For the sake of underscoring your points, maybe you should give some examples of when consensus have radically changed regarding topics of ancient history.
@darylwilliams7883
2 жыл бұрын
This video has a much wider application than just the study of history. As a scientist who has tangled with climate change deniers for decades I have found that the same issue with understanding consensus and what it does is a serious problem there, too. And almost every other area of the environment where the experts are telling people things they don't want to hear.
@onebagcement4175
2 жыл бұрын
I like your videos abd I wish my history teacher back in school. I think the criticism of the established resarchers is that they dont like to see their theories overthrown. I dont share that believe but it is what i hear mostly everytime when some alternate history is getting spun.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Fortunately, the consensus consists mostly of people who didn't make the theories.
@wmgthilgen
2 жыл бұрын
With the exception on the last, I utilize the other four.
@walterulasinksi7031
2 жыл бұрын
While consensus has a high place in historical and, as the individual research contributes to ghat consensus, it does not mean that the consensus# is completely true. Eg: a piece of pottery is found in a strata and the style has been identified as from a particular period. If the strata above that one has pottery that is from an earlier period, there is a distinct anomaly. If the former pottery is found in strata above the one it is found in, does not mean that, the later strata is of the younger time period as artifacts can last along generational lines, for the later, it can be questioned as to when artifact was actually created or if there is a possibility of a disturbance in antiquity that cannot be currently determined. Within narratives, if there is conflicting evidence, then a consensus must be called into question.Eg: the Hebrew Narrative states that the Hebrews were forced to build the city of Ramses with mud brick. The evidence from the monumental stone from PiRamses, is used a# a dating of when the city was built. Automatically, there is a distinct discrepancy. Is the Hebrew narrative incorrect? Or has the consensus been mistaken due to the pronouncement of a prior colleague ? So if a maverick researcher provides logical evidence of why the narrative may be true based upon evidence not available to the prior colleague, should the consensus then consider the new evidence and argument and change accordingly? In many cases, new concepts have come from looking at a problem from a different viewpoint. Eg: the building of the pyramids from the standpoint of an architect/ builder. The same would hold true for the building of Ramses as site conditions are the first thing any construction faces. Both Pro and con and in that case, an entire timeline needs to be reconsidered despite consensus.
@fecalmatter4195
2 жыл бұрын
True mate but I have found experts can be divided in ancient history. I study linguistics and theology and politics of the past as I find you need to get the full picture this way. History often changes as science does and often isn't a smooth transition from the discovery of evolution, germs, solar system (space) even the extinction.of the dinosaurs were often met with aggression. History is one of those things where we haven't found all the pieces of the puzzle yet and will continue finding more.
@waynegoddard4065
2 жыл бұрын
Your comment smells.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. That is why I said that there is no consensus on some issues and that even when there is consensus, it will likely be revised in future.
@yoursotruly
2 жыл бұрын
Such humility! Didn't even include the correct answer, ASK WORLD OF ANTIQUITY!
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
What is the correct answer?
@eighthgate1420
2 жыл бұрын
All of the above! I believe in everybody. Yay
@rodchallis8031
2 жыл бұрын
Examples of where I've not necessarily believed scientific consensus: Origins of the Sudbury Basin. Consensus for decades now has the Sudbury Basin and the abundant mineral deposits there as originating from a meter strike. I always looked at the ancient mountains (estimated to have been as high as the Alps, perhaps as high as the Himalayas) running east from Georgian Bay formed by two proto continents colliding and the resultant subduction as causing a volcano where Sudbury Ontario now sits. The reasoning is sound, and physical evidence could support both views. However, the presence of microscopic fall out (found near Thunder Bay, Ontario) is such that could only be formed by an impact. So, however grudgingly, I changed my view. Because I'm still a kid who thinks volcanoes are cool. The second also involves asteroid impact. I'm not sold that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub impact. There is an alternative hypothesis, the Deccan Traps. I don't know enough technical science to discern between the two. However, both are plausible. But what makes me sceptical about the Chicxulub hypothesis is the rather nasty and unscientific attacks against the woman putting forward the Deccan Traps hypothesis-- some of which are ad hominem, if memory serves. And then proponents of the Chicxulub hypothesis suddenly found a fossil deposit that supposedly showed dinos dead in situ as a result of the asteroid strike. What's the rule about "Too Good To Be True"? Further to that, originally, the fossil site was kept secret. "I have the evidence, you just can't see it." That should set sceptical bells ringing in your head furiously. For now, if I had to bet a pay check, I'd probably go with the asteroid hypothesis, still, but I'm hardly resolutely in that camp.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
If you do the research (and do it well), then you don't have to go with the consensus.
@scerdy3
2 жыл бұрын
There is always significant trolling in polls, especially if the subject is non-political or otherwise not triggering to most people.
@TheAntiburglar
2 жыл бұрын
It's startling to me how many people seem to be under the impression that subjects like history, archaeology, and the like are prescriptive, rather than descriptive. So far as I'm aware, NO discipline is ever putting forth "the way things must be", only ever "the way we observe things are given our available data at this time".
@brhmhkr
2 жыл бұрын
Google Expelled No Intelligence Allowed.
@Nature_Watching_Japan
2 жыл бұрын
Great!
@Dale---
2 жыл бұрын
I agree with everything you said and I don't think there's anything to worry about particularly with regards to the accuracy of the general consensus. I think everyone (or at least most people) with an interest in the subject understands that the events happened so long ago and that in many cases the sources are so scant that it is an inexact science. As I see it though there can be some key problems when the system is not applied correctly. These are more prevalent when it comes to more recent events that are more politically relevant to our own time as well as when it is applied to science. Firstly there is the problem that when the scientific or historical consensus is taught to lay people the fact that it is a consensus which is subject to change and not necessarily absolute fact is often glossed over or not emphasised clearly enough. The perfect example of this is the origins of life and the universe. The truth is we just don't know and without straying too far into the realms of philosophy it is difficult to fathom how we would ever be able to know. However at least in my experience this is not the way it is taught in high schools. Children are taught the current scientific consensus (The Big Bang Theory) as absolute fact and that all other explanations are false beliefs. The result is students leave school with a toxic view of religion and a belief that religious people (85% of the Earth's population) are somehow intellectually inferior. Secondly, the "Trust Science" phenomenon. I have no problem with the phrase in and of itself. The scientific method is a good system and so far we haven't gone too far wrong following it. The problem is the way it has been bastardized and politicized by both the well meaning who have misunderstood it and more nefarious actors. We should trust science in that we should trust the scientific method and the consensus which is drawn by following it. What it has come to mean though is "trust these scientists". The distinction is subtle but important. Lets take COVID-19 vaccinations as an example. To be clear, I am not an anti-vaxxer, I don't think there's a microchip in the vaccines and I've had all 3 jabs I've been offered. Kind of sad that I have to clarify that but anyway: This is all from the perspective of someone in the UK. So first off the government announces it has approved vaccines for COVID-19. Once you have had it you will be immune and once everyone has been offered it we can re-open the country. Then it turns out you need a second one. Then it turns out you need a third one. Then it turns out even if you've had all three you can still get it, you can still pass it on and although it's less likely you might even still die. So is it a vaccine or isn't it? The actual science behind it and whether you can technically by XYZ definition call it a vaccine is not important. The point is to the general public (myself included) before all of this started a vaccine was a vaccine. If you got a vaccine for something it would make you immune. With all the times the story has been changed not just in relation to the vaccine but other official positions surrounding COVID-19 is it any wonder a sizeable subset of the population has no trust whatsoever in the consensus? This would have been largely avoided if they'd just been honest and said "we don't really know but this is what we think is best based on the information we have at this time" but that would not have been a good look politically. People don't like uncertainty. You need someone with credentials to come out and say "this is how it is" even if you're not really sure it is. Ultimately I think the real issue is not the "Aliens Built The Pyramids" type theories. The general public still generally refers to them as conspiracy theories and much of the popularity of shows like Ancient Aliens comes from those watching it for entertainment, not to actually learn about ancient history (I have no data to support that it's just my general feeling, I might be wrong). The bigger issue I believe is more subtle historical revisionism in Films, TV Shows, Video Games, Books and in some cases even the classroom. Things like changing the genders, ethnicities and sexualities of characters or the general social rules or level of technological advancement of a place and time. In fiction you can make a case that this not such a big deal as the purpose is not to educate but if the media looks authentic and realistic those who are not familiar with the history may still go away misinformed. It should be mandated that these types of things have a disclaimer that they are not historically accurate. I mentioned in the classroom as well. An example from my time in school is I recall a teacher (in response to a question from a student) saying we could not be sure of the ethnicity, gender or general appearance of Jesus Christ. This is blatantly false. Scholars both Christian and non-Christian agree he was a man and his appearance would have been typical of any ethnically Jewish man in the 1st Century Levant. Anyway, I've rambled enough there. If anyone actually read it all, thank you. Good video as always. I hope I don't come across as combative or as a nut job, especially with the COVID stuff. I support your mission with this channel but I just wanted to raise those points.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your thoughts. Definitely things to consider!
@nebulan
2 жыл бұрын
Regarding toxic viewing if religious people being intellectually inferior: this might be a cultural thing; i haven't really ever encountered that. In the US, religion is part of our culture and everywhere I've lived it's been accepted that history and science are as the consensus says and any difference is a matter of faith. So generally, religious affiliation shouldn't affect your standing in the academic world as long as one recognizes their biases and puts them aside to focus on evidence and data. Of course there are many other factors.
@thevenbede767
2 жыл бұрын
People really need to stop believing so highly in their intellect to come out and say if they haven't researched they won't form an opinion
@beginnereasy
2 жыл бұрын
Historians are types of entertainers. There's plenty of real world historical examples of things being stories that were widely accepted and then completely doubted as untrue.
@donnanorth7324
2 жыл бұрын
Question: In the fossil record of proto humans like Lucy, do we have ANY complete sets of foot bones? What is the oldest complete set of foot bones that we do have in the human record?
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
That's outside of my field, Donna. I don't know.
@TheatreofPhil
2 жыл бұрын
It's an unbelievably important point that a consensus isn't where knowledge starts, but is, rather, a dynamic result of gathering and interpreting data. It changes as more info becomes available. This is what conspiracy theorists consistently get wrong. A consensus isn't inherently wrong simply by virtue of being a consensus--if the best explanation were something else, then a consensus would be different.
@yensid4294
2 жыл бұрын
My comment is kind of adjacent to the topic of concensus & btw had I seen the poll I would have voted for the consensus of experts answer. Something I see often in articles about newly discovered artifacts is that "they will rewrite history." It's quite hyperbolic & annoying. Like with every new artifact or old bone found scientists just throw out all knowledge & data collected up to that point & start over? No, usually the discovery just adds to or expands on what is already known. Finding a fossil of a new species does not require rewriting the theory of evolution anymore than finding the mummy of an unknown king or queen from an obscure dynasty requires completely rewriting Egyptian history. There is a difference between revising/updating & completely scrapping & starting from scratch.
@franciskolarik6802
2 жыл бұрын
"If I don't have time to do the research, then I just don't form an opinion." Then you have failed the very first criterion of the question: "When you want to know..."
@Ultraramage
2 жыл бұрын
Your words won't distract me from that tardis though
@kianchuansoo3665
Жыл бұрын
Consensus is a general agreement amongst a group of people. In the case of your question which is “When you don’t have time to do research yourself, and you want to know what happened in ancient history, do you:” is vague in nature. What then is that which happened in history? The percentage of various preference presented, I believe, is fair, because what “happened” is hard to know, that is what lay person like me believes, objectivity is based on evidence but what happened is not derived from objectivity; liken to the process of discovery in a criminal case, the outcome is rest assured not left to the experts then we do not need the court. They, the experts, merely contribute to an understanding of the many questions the agents of the court require to come to a conclusion, that is all. Experts are not as important as you think, only important enough to listen to for persuasive reason but not to extract what happened, even the court knows it. There are indeed people who believe there are more than meets the eyes, and a few 6% here and there is fair. I can see that you are exasperated when you referred to those 6%, it is uncalled for. I think the 5%-6% distribution is good and fair, and they do not believe experts know what happened in ancient history even if it is back up by evidence, or artefacts. Just like in the court procedure, we do discovery, we do conferences, see what experts said, because there are many, often your so call consensus does not exist, even amongst experts, and truly hard to find except by leadership in some established class, the state of the field reference is in academic dissertation and essay procedure, it is not a law, it is academic structural preference, which is fair. As we process the information that come to us, in accordance with what has been known, there are huge unknown, which may sometimes not be insignificant the only difference is that it is not known. For those who look into the future, it is their right, like yours to ask the question, they answered honestly, given this is not a criminal case, where life and death is not involved, it is best to just respect their point of view and move on. Well done for all the videos you have done, I truly enjoy them.
@walterulasinksi7031
2 жыл бұрын
History, being the interrelated social interactions of individuals and groups, can become very unwieldy when one tries to form a cohesive consensus.especially in the time of antiquity. That is why it must be separated. Into specialities. Eg: what is the truth surrounding Tutankhamen’s death? Did the Exodus occur, when and how? What was the reason that after the Hyksos were forced out of Egypt, why were the Hebrews left in the Levant? When all the evidence can be sorted in an interpretive manner considering the various types of social interactions, we can reach closer to the truth of these questions. Of the latter question, part of the previous interpretation based upon the Hebrew narrative, includes slavery to a Pharaoh, that did not know of Joseph. This was then taken to mean that all the Dynastic Pharaohs practiced slavery snd the historical narrative included it through today. This is where the historical timeline comes into question. Especially when the archeological evidence of sedimentology, vulcanology, the Hebrew narrative and the narrative from the Ahmose stele, that describe similar events from different vantage points. And the inscribed Egyptian historical records can combine to form a cohesive, logical whole based on social interactions and motivations. Even when it contradicts the accepted consensus.
@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa9068
2 жыл бұрын
I picked a joke answer. I found the question to be quite silly, only one choice was anywhere near rational. Though I suppose that really proves your point haha! My apologies for any concern or confusion.
@magmiksch987
2 жыл бұрын
never noticed you knot your tie in this islander style
@thegoodybarn9060
2 жыл бұрын
Whatever Zahi says is right ✅
@walterulasinksi7031
2 жыл бұрын
There are more than one mode of considering consensus. Fro the standpoint of the specialist and the standpoint of the generalist. While the specialist is usually in the field collecting various data and artifacts pertaining to one aspect of a subject. A generalist tries to take all the data that they have not collected themselves and works to bring forth a cohesive view Eg: A Geologist can give a logical answer as to when Tutankhamen was buried and why his tomb was overlooked by tomb robbers, not an Egyptologist, because each are looking at different aspects of the evidence. The Generalist takes the findings of each of the specialists, and combines them into a historical perspective, adding a social aspect into the mux of data. Therefore the nature of the question is ambiguous, as in academia, the pressure is to publish or perish. It is that pressure that can cause anyone to concede to a consensus that may be false. Having taught at College level myself, I always asked my students questions that would cause them to think for themselves. “ Let them eat Cake” for the time and place, What is Cake?
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
*Therefore the nature of the question is ambiguous, as in academia, the pressure is to publish or perish. It is that pressure that can cause anyone to concede to a consensus that may be false.* Surely as a person who has taught college, you must be aware that in order to get published, you have to argue something new.
@walterulasinksi7031
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity while one can argue something new,it can still be biased by prior consensus. In history, we can talk about the end of the Bronze age, and Eric Cline PHD can assert a perfect storm of events as a cause, I have responded to him, that while there events that effect various areas, the one thing that would effect all of the combined trading nations would be the supply chain regarding raw Tin. In that while there may have been a local event, the urnfield incursion into Iberia ( the major source of Tin) would initially be a cause for the breakdown and begin the migrations that brought down most of the cultures in the Mediterranean. I do agree that the understanding of history is very important so that current human cultures can avoid situations of a similar nature in the present. The current incursion by Russia into the Ukraine and Crimea can be equated to Hitler’s incursion into the Sudetenland. This was being addressed before the policies of appeasement by the US 45th president. It was that appeasement, that embolden Putin to his current actions.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
@@walterulasinksi7031 I definitely think experts have bias. I think I mentioned that in the video. I was only commenting on whether "pressure to publish" causes people to concede to a consensus.
@walterulasinksi7031
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity I would say that unless we take everything we have been taught and examine the consensus, we cannot just accept such consensus. Every specialty may have its own consensus that may or may not coincide with the consensus of other specialists. All this affects the historian. This is why ,especially in the free access markets of publishing, You Tube, PBS documentaries, etc. one can easily see how th3 consensus affects the manner of each publication. The PBS NOVA series mist of which is available ,free on You Tube, can show both discoveries and have pronouncements from various “Experts”. While shows such as this and “ Secrets of the Dead” are for entertainment purposes, they are also trusted by the masses as the final consensus. Even if some of the information is totally wrong. Eg:in NOVA’s “Raising the Pharaoh’s Obelisk” there is one point where Mark Lerner( Egyptologist) shows a tomb painting of a gang of men dragging a colossus. And uses it to assert that it was the only motive force available. It then states that many of these were slaves and prisoners.without evidence to support the claims. While Zawi Hawass pronounces that the Dynastic Pharaohs did not use slaves. To those too busy to do their own research, such becomes a conflict within a consensus. It has been considered that Egyptian tomb art ,much like that inscribed on public walks is a biased form of propaganda, so the use of only human muscle as a motive force becomes suspect. Even today, a construction crew will stand for a picture and not include the equipment used to create the construction. In much earlier tomb paintings, there was depicted the use of a draft bovine being used for farming, this could be taken to show that humans had harnessed such motive force. Is it then unreasonable to assert that such motive force was used for the pulling of a colossus, even if not depicted? And the consensus is inaccurate? How should historians then accept or question the firm consensus arising from various specialties? I would still assert as you do that doing one’s own research through whichever means, to bring forth new and possibly conflicting argument of the consensus. Yes, take the consensus but with a grain of salt, and do not blindly accept the pronouncements from either present colleagues or the most famous people of the past generations such as Albright and Pietre.
@andrewroberthook3310
2 жыл бұрын
The question HOW ARE YOU is the most profound Quest you are on
@grimmer2005
2 жыл бұрын
This guy looks like a nerdy version of the actor Peter Stormare :D
@Great_Olaf5
2 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure I ended up not picking any of them. Partially because I'm a skeptic by nature, possibly to the point of arbitrariness, so I don't necessarily believe what I'm told by anyone, though I'm willing to go with a "good enough for now" mentality in most things. And partially because it's not really clear to me how to obtain the consensus view without doing extensive research myself. The scholarly consensus isn't, to my understanding, what any one person says, it's what most scholars agree on, and the only way to obtain that information is to read a bunch of articles, and hope they're a representative sample of scholars in the field. That's not exactly something you do if you don't have the time for research. So I tend to go for reading two or three articles, skim past anything that's already familiar to me unless I'm specifically trying to narrow in on that area and come to a "that's good enough for now" conclusion. If there's an easier way to ascertain the scholarly consensus then I'd be happy to learn about that. I don't recoil at the idea of experts perse, but I do oppose the relatively common belief in the infallibility of expertise. Experts are absolutely valuable, as you said, they've studied in their field extensively and I do think they can be generally trusted to know what they're talking about insofar as they've studied. However, to some people expertise means being absolutely correct whenever they're talking about their subject. I'm not going to claim there's some conspiracy to keep the truth hidden, secrets like tar tend to fall apart far too quickly to be worth worrying about overmuch, but experts are very much not free of bias and incentive, and scholars often aren't public personas enough to easily determine their biases outside of their work, and if you don't know what you're looking for (which, the average person, myself included, are not going to know what to look for to identify all potentially significant biases) it can be difficult to ascertain how their biases influenced their research or argumentation. And again, I'm not saying that they are intentionally coloring their work, but someone who, for example, subscribes to Marxist ideology, might be more likely to see economic strife and class warfare when investigating ruins with evidence of human caused damage, while another might look at the same evidence and see a foreign invasion or civil war, and while deeper investigation can clarify things, the initial assumptions can influence the direction of further research and the development progress of theories and study. Over time these ideas can be hammered out, but the consensus is never going to be static for long, because we constantly have people searching due new angles and new evidence to make a name fit themselves. And that's just in history, other scientific fields have far more potential incentives to skew things, hiring bias, the type of people who choose to go into certain fields, publication bias, following the grant money (I know that many of these apply to history as well, but there's justifiably a lot more money invested into cancer research than history or archeology), and others. We're scientists, it's probably relatively rare to outright lie, it doesn't take a large number of people to cause harm, and bias and desperation can nudge things in directions further from the truth without being false.
@willisfouts4838
2 жыл бұрын
The writing of history is muddled at best. It’s akin to the scientific method. To falsify a former theory, proposition, hypothesis or dogma even, is our only recourse when attempting to ‘rewrite’ history. Or I’m just behind the eight ball, lol.
@عبدالله-ن6ه2ص
2 жыл бұрын
Dr. Miano How can there be consensus in the heavenly holy books, for example, the story of the migration of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, is found in the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur’an, and perhaps some details are not found in the Bible and vice versa, and Christians do not believe that the Qur’an is the word of God and Muslims believe that the Bible is distorted, so they do not know right from wrong For example, the area of Maghaer Shuaib is one of the archaeological jewels of Saudi Arabia that Arab historians attribute to Prophet Shuaib or (Yathro) in the Bible and the neighboring areas that some Arab historians attribute to the Prophet Musa pbuh, such as Jabal Musa, the Rock of Musa, Well of Musa, etc.. As an archaeologist, how do I verify the stories in the three heavenly books? For example, as a Muslim, I believe 100% that the Qur’an is completely authentic Are you a Christian, how do you work on that and will your religious thought interfere with the adoption of the Qur’an or not, or will you resort to another method for exploration and inference despite the presence of texts that may help in excavating these monuments Another example : Mada'in Salih was known in the past among the Arabs as belonging to the Thamud civilization, the people of the Prophet Salih pbuh, and their story is detailed in the Qur'an. Dr. Suleiman Al-Deeb, the Saudi archaeologist, appeared and said that it belongs to the Nabataeans because there are no earthquakes in this region because of their rejection of the message of the Prophet Saleh pbuh But the Prophet Muhammad pbuh passed through this area on his way from Medina to Tabuk and talked about it In the Qur’an, his example is described: That the buildings carved in the mountains are dwellings and they were tortured in the village In the Qur’an, it is called Hegra, and it is still the same name In the Qur’an it is mentioned that the village is rich in palm trees and still is Etc.. From the evidence that makes it clear beyond any doubt that Mada'in Salih belonged to the Thamud people. But archaeologists insist that the dwellings of Thamud are cemeteries and that what is meant by Saleh is not the Prophet Saleh, but rather a prince who used to live in them, etc.. Archaeologists have lied what the people of Al-Ula believed in, what the Arabs knew in the past, what Arab travelers and historians knew centuries ago, and what the Qur’an strongly described for Madin Saleh, including carving in the mountains and palms, the name of Hegra, the passage of the Prophet Muhammad from the same road, etc... . That's why archaeologists sometimes put horns in my head and don't make me believe their studies
@@parmykumar8592 Dear Barmi, I am a Saudi Arab, and I know the history of the Qur’an well, so I do not listen to ignorant people. They only spread lies and speak ignorantly like David Wood Assad on KZitem. When you meet someone who understands Islam, he is like a gentle cat. If you want to benefit from this topic, listen to the sheikhs of hadith scholars and learn Islam from them, and you will find the answer to all your questions, such as Sheikh Othman bin Al-Farouq, Dr. Tahir Wyatt and Ustaadh Muhammad Tim Humble
@mg-ew2xf
2 жыл бұрын
The lack of archeological evidence for the Moses migration makes it very unlikely to be accurate as described. Much smaller, maybe a handful of slaves, if it even happened at all.
@parmykumar8592
2 жыл бұрын
@@عبدالله-ن6ه2ص what shall i read, the autobiography that was written over 100 years after the Prophet's death or the hadiths which were written 200 years after the Prophet's death?
@عبدالله-ن6ه2ص
2 жыл бұрын
@@parmykumar8592 Dear Parmi, We have all the answers to your doubts and accusations just follow the discussions of Muslim preachers to answer these topics such as Sheikh Othman Bin Al-Farouq, Shamsi, Hisham, Mansur, Sheikh Abdullah, Sajid Libhan and Dr.Tahir Wyatt. I will send you a torch that may make your heart shine to see the truth The quran proves that ants are made of glass kzitem.info/news/bejne/madtmmaqcpRlfKg Ants ' Wingless ants are all females' Miracles of Quran #HUDATV kzitem.info/news/bejne/2IN6n45ojqV6pKw
@claudiaxander
2 жыл бұрын
Essential viewing! Nearly all my arguments should start with 'who and why do you trust when sourcing your information' as when I do, most leave the conversation! LOL!
@stevefaure415
2 жыл бұрын
Great video. You left out the "assume it was aliens" option, though.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Ah, silly me.
@inoshikachokonoyarobakayar2493
2 жыл бұрын
I'm all ears until the presenter/s ask me to "take a leap of faith."
@skybluskyblueify
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if those that say "experts just want to lord it over everyone else" are projecting how they'd use their own expertise or pseudo-expertise? Or can we combine that with are people that feel stepped-on by experts in nearly all fields? Or are suffering unjustified or justified paranoia?
@shermanatorosborn9688
2 жыл бұрын
ain't nobody pulled a tape on distance to sun ,so no measurement could be accurate to the degree i could accept.
@nebulan
2 жыл бұрын
🤣
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
😆
@shermanatorosborn9688
2 жыл бұрын
ParkerSO is doing a great job tho , so it's an issue that will be resolved
@ItsJabaCast
2 жыл бұрын
you and sephr should have a debate
@greghansen38
2 жыл бұрын
Professor, I just saw this Kurzgesagt video on the Silurian Hypothesis, although they didn't call it by name. They're looking at ancient lost civilizations from millions of years ago, not a few tens of thousands, but I thought of you. kzitem.info/news/bejne/rIis3GSHnaSmgIY
@normsti000
2 жыл бұрын
This is great but it has meaning only when you know enough to know who the experts are. Too often, people cloak themselves in the trappings of expertise while actually having a weak foundation. Therefore, when one doesn't know enough, all and any beliefs should be understood to be preliminary and not well founded.
@AMcAFaves
2 жыл бұрын
I enjoyed the video. I learnt something that I hadn't thought about before (that consensus isn't part of the scientific process, but part of sharing scientific info.) The poll was expressed in a way that poisoned the well in the alternatives to the actual best answer, so it came across as making a point you was trying to make, rather than being more serious, which is probably why more people than otherwise selected a joke answer. I'd be curious to what the results of a poll would be if the candidate answers were written in a way that makes each answer seem plausibly correct. KZitem is probably not the forum to expect any decent level of rigour in a poll though. 🙂
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
So you mean, like, reword "Believe what you wish to be true" to something else? I honestly don't know how I could phrase it to make it plausible.
@breakaleg10
2 жыл бұрын
If I, as an amateur, had access to certain material on a subject, I would have wanted to do research on this subject to see if the consensus holds water. I would likely go with the consensus in the end anyway, because the material can't tell us any other logical way to go. "Believing" something only makes you go the wrong way.
@deathdoor
2 жыл бұрын
Third option of that pool is bull. Going by YT numbers much more than 6% would go with that option.
@markwagoner3599
Жыл бұрын
Ameture historian here. If you don't know the answer, then do the research. I do it all the time.
@WorldofAntiquity
Жыл бұрын
How many questions can you research in a lifetime? Please keep in mind that a question about a specific topic on one country would require first a comprehensive knowledge of the history of that country. Without context, no answer can be obtained reliably. Then you would need obtain comprehensive knowledge of that topic.
@markwagoner3599
Жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity exactly
@WorldofAntiquity
Жыл бұрын
@@markwagoner3599 So answer my question then.
@markwagoner3599
Жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity all I was doing is agreeing with you.
@markwagoner3599
Жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity I never said that I was anything but an ameture historian. That means that I have done limited research on my favorite historical topics. I don't understand where the hostility is coming from. You said something about doing research, and that was how you learn. That's what I do. So what is the problem?
@BigHugeYES
2 жыл бұрын
Does it serve a valuable function that a minority of people tend toward skepticism of the consensus?
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
The only people whose opinion on the consensus matters are the people who have studied the subject. And YES, they should be skeptical. But people who are skeptical of a consensus on a subject they don't know anything about are not helping themselves.
@BigHugeYES
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity Should non-experts refrain from skepticism when a consensus appears to be trying to disincentivize or dissuade dissenting opinions? (That’s a lot of diss!) I don’t have any specific consensus in mind except that we’ve seen the scientific consensus used for profit and politics before. How can the public hedge against those manipulations?
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
@@BigHugeYES I don't know what you're referring to when you say "manipulations." Can you give some examples? Dissuasion is not manipulation.
@whycantiremainanonymous8091
2 жыл бұрын
11:27: Not that groupthink doesn't exist in academia. I mean, the presentation in this video is quite a bit idealized. When a scientific discipline or field is working as it should, everything you say about consensus is basically true. But then quite often it doesn't work as it should. There are various forms of petty politics, power struggles, fights for scraps of jobs and grants, considerations of fake prestige, and whatnot. In some fields (I can think of some prominent examples in linguistics and economics, and I'm certain there are other examples I'm not aware of), you have proponents of one school of thought presenting their view as "the consensus" in order to discredit alternative approaches without actually engaging in a debate with them (and when I say "alternative approaches", I'm not talking about some fringe theories by lone scholars here and there, though these also deserve their day in court, but about well-established research programs with large numbers of scholars working within them).
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
*When a scientific discipline or field is working as it should, everything you say about consensus is basically true. But then quite often it doesn't work as it should.* That's true, but should we assume it is not working as our default position? I don't think so. *you have proponents of one school of thought presenting their view as "the consensus" in order to discredit alternative approaches without actually engaging in a debate with them* As I said in the video, I rarely hear the experts themselves doing this. I hear it from the non-specialists (media, for example). And before you show me an example of a scientist or historian doing this, ask first whether that person is a specialist in the actual field they are referring to. I think you will find that a scholar who comes up with an alternative theory will most certainly get "their day in court."
@whycantiremainanonymous8091
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity Well, it's true that the word "consensus" is less frequently used in scholarly communication, but you have equivalents, such as the claim that only work done by proponents of the theory in question are not "scientific", or are "ad hoc". And as for the day in court, well, let me tell you now as a journal editor: it's incredibly hard to convince an editorial board to publish people working outside established paradigms, even when the paper is otherwise solid. They are really fearful for the journal's, and their own, prestige.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 *you have equivalents, such as the claim that only work done by proponents of the theory in question are not "scientific", or are "ad hoc".* That's not equivalent at all. That's about the quality of the content, not about how many people believe it. *it's incredibly hard to convince an editorial board to publish people working outside established paradigms, even when the paper is otherwise solid. They are really fearful for the journal's, and their own, prestige.* The only thing that academic journals publish (unless you're in the book review section) is new ideas. Quality is the #1 reason for failure to get published. Quality, of course, can at times be subjective, but fortunately there are hundreds of potential journals with different editors to publish in.
@whycantiremainanonymous8091
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity Maybe that holds in ancient history. Maybe. I'm in a different field, and, again, I'm writing this as editor, not author. Let's say a paper's quality gets much less scrutiny if it's doing incremental work within an established school. Everybody involved feels much safer.
@whycantiremainanonymous8091
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity PS: And on the equivalence with "consensus", well, these statements then back up claims in textbooks about their approach being the consensus, the only "serious scientific" approach to the subject, the only stuff published in serious/reputable journals, etc. Of course, other approaches have their own publications, but those are not "scientific", "serious" or "reputable enough, and therefore are outside the consensus, you see...
@carlosdiaz2688
2 жыл бұрын
Your the Expert . That the Internet needed ... simple English Just watching your show Shows me you’re fighter Science needs fighters Gates Jobs Tuff guys
@lacintag5482
2 жыл бұрын
Reading about Christ Myth Theory in the last year or so taught me that a consensus is only as good as the experts and institutions reaching it. If the wider community is biased for whatever reasons (religious reasons in the case of the Jesus historicity question) and their methodologies are flawed then their consensus is void and there's practically is no consensus because there's not enough valid unbiased research to reach one.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
How is it possible for their methodologies to be flawed, if the methodology is no different from any other period of history? And if the wider community is made up from people from different countries and religious backgrounds, how is that not a check on the biases of one subsection of the community?
@lacintag5482
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity Their methodology is wildly different from other fields of study in history. And the "wider community" of New Testament studies is largely Christian universities.
@TheDanEdwards
2 жыл бұрын
"Reading about Christ Myth Theory" - perhaps you are addressing what more accurately can be called _Jesus_ -mythicism. The word "christ" is not a proper name, and anyone who is not a Christian is a christ-mythicist because said people do not believe in the idea that some anointing ("christ") existed (at least as claimed by Christians.) Jesus-mythicism is the idea that the main character of the canonical gospels was not a real person (as portrayed in said gospels.) That out of the way, the questions (directed to you) from World of Antiquity are good ones. I suspect that instead of "their methodologies are flawed" you might have better worded it as "their methodologies are biased by religious beliefs in the Bible". Also regarding "their consensus is void" is not a possible thing. A consensus either exists or not. I agree with you that the alleged history of the main character of the NT is so colored by religious beliefs that one should be highly suspect of any claims found in the NT. But in the Christian community there is a consensus, even if you think it is highly flawed.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
*Their methodology is wildly different from other fields of study in history.* How so?
@lacintag5482
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity They use certain invalid criteria that aren't use in any other area of historical research in order to determine the supposed truth in the gospel narratives. Such as the "criterion of embarrassment" the idea that if an author would've found a detail embarrassing they wouldn't have included it in the text or made it up, therefore it must be true. A baseless assertion that acts like they can get into the heads of anonymous writers who lived thousands of years ago. There's also the "criterion of dissimilarity" which claims that if a statement of event written about Jesus is different from the norms of the time or the later church traditions then it is more likely true. Which requires both 1. Ignoring precedents in Judaism or other religions and 2. Implying that later writers can't make things up deviate from the norm. The final bogus criterion they use is the "criterion of multiple attestation" which says that if certain independent texts repeat an event that event is likely true. That would be a valid criterion if the texts they used for it were actually independent (or real) but they're not. The texts are: Paul (actually independent) Q source (hypothetical source that we have no evidence for its existence) L, and M sources (again, hypothetical sources) Mark (not independent to Paul's letters) Gospel of John (not independent to the other 3 gospels or Paul) Josephus (all references to Jesus are forgeries based on the gospels and/or Paul or later Christian traditions) Tacitus (probably a forgery, and even if not, no proof that it's independent from the gospels).
@nebulan
2 жыл бұрын
I can't remember where i saw a comment once on a video about whether Jesus was a real person. The video was saying that per historical evidence a, b, c that he probably was and the commenter said "I can't wait for Godless Engineer to respond to this!" I can't remember which video it was either HistoryForAtheists, UsefulCharts or ReligionForBreakfast (all three channels have presented historical, non-religious evidence so that's probably why I can't remember which) and in all the channels the guys say they have history or religious studies degree, vs a guy who says he has an engineering degree. Without looking up any of their credentials, even saying they have these degrees, I'm more inclined to believe the guys who at least say they studied the relevant fields. Now I've watched Godless Engineer, he's smart and charismatic but a self-professed engineer, not a historian. I have an engineering degree and I wouldn't trust me over a historian! That said, I could do a deeper dive into the research plus verify all these guys' credentials... but it's not that important to me... 😕
@guillaumerusengo9371
2 жыл бұрын
I agree but I can't resist sexy, cool mavericks.
@ejrich7016
2 жыл бұрын
Was the Ptolemaic dynasty racist? Is that why they only bred within their own family? Is that why Caesar was willing to accept Cleopatra, because she was Greek afterall?
@michaelsmyth3935
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, the earth is round, water is wet, etc. Maverick?, what a polite way to put that. Holy views of history have not really been helpful to actual teaching of fact.
@Flum666
2 жыл бұрын
please explain the Clovis Culture and how they're not the first Americans, please, I beg you
@Flum666
2 жыл бұрын
BTW now consensus doesn't matter
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Because archaeologists found evidence to show that it wasn't the earliest. That was an easy one.
@Flum666
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity but it's still the concensus view that they are the earliest
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
@@Flum666 No it isn't.
@Flum666
2 жыл бұрын
@@WorldofAntiquity it is though
@carymartin1150
2 жыл бұрын
Going with the consensus is not exciting and a lot of people want to be excited about something rather than correct.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
True!
@malekkushimuzik3580
2 жыл бұрын
Conclusions are not reached through democratic means, but agendas are the bigger issue. Consensus is simply agreement on brainwashing.
@WorldofAntiquity
2 жыл бұрын
Hmm...I wonder why I wasn't invited to any of the meetings. What agenda is there for ancient history?
@benmak1039
2 жыл бұрын
Archaeology is based too much on assumption which is why I find it hard to not question a lot of it. For example you will have certain tool or item found at a site then someone one will assume what that object was used for which could then lead to a conclusion about the way people lived at that site and their culture but there's far too much assumption involved for me to respect that conclusion in a scientific sense.
Пікірлер: 444