Talk:Fingerprints of the Gods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
This article about Graham Hancock's book is very biased, full of orthodox prejudices and arrogancy. What does "speculative author" mean, for God's sake? As a frequent Wikipedia user, I feel very disappointed. Look at this paragraph: "Although self-described as a work of non-fiction, the proposals put forward in the book are frequently described as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology by those in the scholarly and scientific community who have examined its contentions." Pseudoscience? Lack of objectivity and a biased narrow-minded, conservative approach here.
[edit] Agreed
This does carry a biased tone. Now I have read "Fingerprints," and found the ideas to be contestable, in the very least. However, the author does note evidence and offers this evidence to the reader. This article, on the other hand, uses vague references to "them." When citing sources, "most people," "much of the ---- community," and such can only be used if you have actually and personally asked "most people" (which to be safe would be roughly 8,000,000,000 people with care to a random sampling of gender, age, religion, education, and other socio-economic factors). If you did not ask "most people," then provide who you did ask, or cite the appropriate article. Citing sources is key to any academic discussion; an agreement on certain "truths" for the present argument to set upon. CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!! For more information, please see the Modern Language Association's web-site or MLA Guide.
[edit] Moreover
Earth-crust displacement and plate tectonics are not mutually exclusive. And Albert Einstein supported Dr. Hapgood's theory!
Sss4r 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Einstein didn't know about plate tectonics.--Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exactly.
I'm working my through it now, and while I've found plenty that in no way stands up to Occam's razor, he is attempting to analyze a LOT of coincidences in art and architecture among cultures that had no obvious contact in the known past, whereas pertty much every "credible" or "mainstream" scholar just dismisses them as a knee-jerk reaction without seeing any real need to explain why. While I don't think there was an Ice Age global empire that's responsible for every mystery of the ancient world, I do think the rest of academia would do well to learn from Graham's willingness to think outside the paradigm of orthodoxy with regard to dates and history.
After all, while it may seem an outlandish idea that there was a space age civilisation responsible for the scale and precision of Andean stonework, it is surely almost as outlandish to suggest that a culture with no iron tools, no heavy drafts animals, and no wheel, could have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
