As a post-script to the last post, the same site that reprinted the entire Economist article, naturally, given its name, explores other mysterious artefacts. So I stumbled on this Fuente Magna - Rosetta Stone of Americas
I haven't seen much online in terms of verifying or decrying the authenticity of the piece, although it was apparently originally dismissed as a fake.
I'm one of those people who walk a middle road on such matters--on the one hand, I believe it's easy to jump to conclusions, to put imagination over evidence, etc. There are a lot of crackpots out there, after all. But skepticism isn't necessarily based on truth, either, because in some ways 'science' is taken as much on faith as any other belief system. That which can be measured does not preclude the idea that there are things we do not have the capability or understanding to quantify. I was always taught that a true scientist does not become hidebound in her theories, but searches for new methods of discovery. I also believe that academia's penchant for specialities sometimes precludes a search for truth. After all, if something is true, then archaeology, history, and geology should agree, although admittedly it is usually our interpretations, subject to human failings, that cloud our understanding.
So, these things interest me--both sides of the debate do, in fact. I thought you might want to take a look, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment