The Ancient Ruins of Tiahuanaco

[Adriano]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZpOAEm7mQ

The Site known as Puma Punku, holds large stone slabs that can weigh upto 800 tons [for the mathematically limited, that is 1,600,000 lbs, or just about the size of 10 adult sperm whales...or 5 adult blue whales...I digress you get the picture.).
The slabs are made from Granite and Diorite, the only harder substance that could've been used to cut these were Diamond. And some of the detailing is in such precision that most modern technology wouldn't even be able to redo this.

The site is planted in a clearing 10 miles away from any civilization.
How did they get here?


Addendum: I'm a big history channel buff, and I'm really fascinated with this type of stuff.
Just interested in hearing other people's stories/reactions/ideas.

[Mysterious-G]

The site is planted in a clearing 10 miles away from any civilization.
How did they get here?


They did get there by foot, silly. ;)

[Adriano]

They did get there by foot, silly. ;)

Oh, you. ;)

[Epically Leet]

I think we really underestimate the ancient people.

...Or aliens actually do exist and the new-age theories of them having been here to help people back in the day is all true!



No, relax. I'm not serious. Yes, I fully believe in aliens, but not that they've been here or most likely ever will be.

[Randomness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZpOAEm7mQ

The Site known as Puma Punku, holds large stone slabs that weigh upto 800 tons.
The slabs are made from Granite and Diorite, the only harder substance that could've been used to cut these were Diamond. And some of the detailing is in such precision that most modern technology wouldn't even be able to redo this.

The site is planted in a clearing 10 miles away from any civilization.
How did they get here?

The bolded part:After over 1,000 years... yeah right. Erosion, much? As for detail, we have LASERS. I assure you, whatever level of detail is left after centuries of wear, we can cut into diamond with 100x the detail level. (Again, LASERS)

As for the distance... Stonehenge? Log rollers? Pyramids at Giza?

And a pointy bit of granite with a hammer would would chisel stuff nicely.

I used to like watching the History channel, but now its half crackpot idiots with their illogical theories who just ignore evidence to the contrary. (The thing about Egyptian tombs... they assume only sunlight and torches could have been used. They never consider building the tomb up around the coffin, or memorizing the path, or other light sources... like fireflies)

FKL postcount +1.



No, relax. I'm not serious. Yes, I fully believe in aliens, but not that they've been here or most likely ever will be.

Law of Large Numbers agrees with you. Probability is non-zero, universe is enormous... life on other planets exists SOMEWHERE. Without FTL, we'll never find it though.

[Epically Leet]

Exactly.

Not to mention I believe in that one theory, panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia). That doesn't mean I think all life is the same, though, and that there are humans in space; because of course it would evolve differently under different conditions. (Yeah, I believe in evolution as well.)

Side note: I thought about the idea before knowing it was an explored theory, by the way -- meaning I didn't just read a line of text, thought "hey, sounds logical. Gonna praise this". Most of my various beliefs and ideas (evolution being an exception) are things my logic allowed me to think of in the first place. Just felt the need to say that, so I don't appear as a random fool who eats whatever is being fed.



On-topic: I want them to investigate this Tiwanaku crap further. I would love to know how they did it!

[Adriano]

The bolded part:After over 1,000 years... yeah right. Erosion, much? As for detail, we have LASERS. I assure you, whatever level of detail is left after centuries of wear, we can cut into diamond with 100x the detail level. (Again, LASERS)
Misconception #1, after over a thousand years of whose history are you speaking of?
This certainly wasn't the civilization most historians believe modern day man came from.
Since these structures pre-date modern civilization.
So that is moot point really...the big mystery is WHO built these.

What does erosion have to do with the absolutely minute of details on these massive scales of
rock? If anything, that's saying theses structures could have been even more grandiose than what they are now. The fact that the details even exist is the baffling part.
And I can assure you I said MOST modern technology, I'm not even sure how lasers work to be completely honest, so I really don't have much to say about that.
Protip:The youngest of these structures(of puma punku) can be dated to well beyond 500 B.C. So that's 2500 years old atleast.


As for the distance... Stonehenge? Log rollers? Pyramids at Giza?
What does this have to do with anything?
Include those too then.
Also, the structures of stonehenge are nowhere near this level of detail, though that is a completely different discussion altogether.
If anything the structures of puma punku make stonehenge look like a rough draft, and the relics of tihuanaco look like the finished edition.


And a pointy bit of granite with a hammer would would chisel stuff nicely.

Ok, you go take a hammer and chisel to a 500 yard long slab of granite in a perfectly straight line, then tell me how it goes.



I used to like watching the History channel, but now its half crackpot idiots with their illogical theories who just ignore evidence to the contrary. (The thing about Egyptian tombs... they assume only sunlight and torches could have been used. They never consider building the tomb up around the coffin, or memorizing the path, or other light sources... like fireflies)
This comment is filled with so much slander and melarchy that I don't even know what.




These Stones are impossibly huge, and the level of detail is on par with what we can do today, that's what I wanted to discuss, not why the histry chanl sux.


I also believe that there is something else out there.
Of all the trillions, and trillions of stars out there, with their own orbital bodies circling them, there is bound to be an exact replica of our Earth, or something close enough to sustain life.
It is too ignorant of an idea to believe that we are the one exception.

[Epically Leet]

I also believe that there is something else out there.
Of all the trillions, and trillions of stars out there, with their own orbital bodies circling them, there is bound to be an exact replica of our Earth, or something close enough to sustain life.
It is too ignorant of an idea to believe that we are the one exception.


Why does everyone think life can only exist under our circumstances? I think it's such an ignorant assumption. Why wouldn't life be able to adjust to different conditions, especially if it developed there? People's arguement would probably be "it can't develop there", but that brings me back to the first thing I said. I don't see why our planet is the ultimate planet in the universe. From a universal view, it's an arrogant thought to think it's perfect. Really.

[Adriano]

Why does everyone think life can only exist under our circumstances? I think it's such an ignorant assumption. Why wouldn't life be able to adjust to different conditions, especially if it developed there? People's arguement would probably be "it can't develop there", but that brings me back to the first thing I said. I don't see why our planet is the ultimate planet in the universe. From a universal view, it's an arrogant thought to think it's perfect. Really.

You would need a chemistry/biology/astronomy expert to tell you the specifics, but I'll give a crack at it.

The reason why I said a replica or planet similar to Earth, is because, as far as I am aware, Earth's climate is in the middle of the cosmic spectrum as it were, so, it's not so hot(Mercury/Venus) that the molecules start to break apart, and it's not so cold that they all freeze(all of the other planets ahurr). But then again, mercury gets extremely hot during it's day,a nd extremely cold during it's nights, so yeah...I guess it can go either way.

I'm sure somebody could give a better explanation, but that's about as good a grasp as I have on it.

[Epically Leet]

Ah, yes. I get it. The distance from the sun makes for a perfect balance of heat and cold. But if it was too cold, wouldn't life there just develop a thick furr to survive in the cold? And if it's really hot, wouldn't you just be able to endure heat more -- perhaps with some sort of hard, lizard-like skin? I mean, the younger states of life are pretty much indestructible anyway (so much that they could be on a meteorite hitting Earth and survive it, if I recall correctly). So if it developed from that state, in imperfect conditions, wouldn't they just gradually adjust during evolution?

Even life on EARTH adjusts to these different conditions, AFTER having developed into intelligent beings! Right? Life here is known to adjust, right? Animals in Antarctica can survive the cold even if we humans can't. Animals in Africa can survive the heat more easily than humans (or so I've been made to believe). So why couldn't this be taken into a grander scale? Can't something adjust itself to extreme heat or cold?


[Epically Leet excuses the lack of scientific evidence to support his statements. He's a teenager with mere theories.]


Sorry for taking this so off-topic, by the way.

[Adriano]

Ah, yes. I get it. The distance from the sun makes for a perfect balance of heat and cold. But if it was too cold, wouldn't life there just develop a thick furr to survive in the cold? And if it's really hot, wouldn't you just be able to endure heat more -- perhaps with some sort of hard, lizard-like skin? I mean, the younger states of life are pretty much indestructible anyway (so much that they could be on a meteorite hitting Earth and survive it, if I recall correctly). So if it developed from that state, in imperfect conditions, wouldn't they just gradually adjust during evolution?

Even life on EARTH adjusts to these different conditions, AFTER having developed into intelligent beings! Right? Life here is known to adjust, right? Animals in Antarctica can survive the cold even if we humans can't. Animals in Africa can survive the heat more easily than humans (or so I've been made to believe). So why couldn't this be taken into a grander scale? Can't something adjust itself to extreme heat or cold?


[Epically Leet excuses the lack of scientific evidence to support his statements. He's a teenager with mere theories.]

Sorry for taking this so off-topic, by the way.

It's fine, a discussion is what I was asking for, and I guess begger's can't be choosers. :p

Anyway, I was going to add, that I don't think you are taking the temperature difference to a grand enough scale.

The highest/lowest temperatures reached in Earth's climate, are nowhere near the temperatures reached on the neighboring planets.
Let's take Venus for example. Since she is considered earth's twin or sister so to speak, since they are so close in size, and distance from the sun.

I did some searching online for a good representation of exactly how hot it gets on venus.
This is what hypertextbook.com said about Venus' atmosphere.

"Water and water vapor are extremely rare on Venus due to its high surface temperature that can approach 758 K (900 °F). This extreme temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect. As sunlight heats Venus' surface, the surface radiates infrared energy that is kept from escaping the planet by dense carbon dioxide atmosphere...This dense atmosphere produces a run-away greenhouse effect that raises Venus' surface temperature by about 400 degrees to over 740 K (hot enough to melt lead). Venus' surface is actually hotter than Mercury's despite being nearly twice as far from the Sun."
Also since the atmosphere is so thick with carbon dioxide, it makes the air on venus unbreathable.

I'm no biology wiz, but I'm fairly sure, to sustain life, oxygen plays a key role in plants/animals, and even some/most bacteria. Since you wouldn't have one without the other. And you need oxygen for photosynthesis/cellular respiration...or else everything will die.
So the atmosphere would first need to be able to sustain oxygen for any other life to be able to exist, and furthermore evolve. Evolve into something that can exist without, or with a lack of oxygen, like those bacteria that can live inside active volcanoes.

But yeah, so offtopic, so about these rocks... :wacko:

[Epically Leet]

I was indeed not taking the differences to a grand enough scale. Hot enough to meld lead? HOLY ****.

But yeah, point taken. Still, I think it isn't impossible that life, somewhere, doesn't even need oxygen to survive. How did life start to begin with, anyway? And what about atmosphere? If it can just appear out of nowhere, everything is possible... But now I'm being unfairly philosophical.


Yes, so about these rocks. Does anyone have any theories?

[Adriano]

There is a Swiss author named Erich von Daniken who wrote a book some decades ago that basically analyzes all of the great known(and unkown) mysteries of the strange geographical structures such as Stonehenge and Puma Punku. And the salt lines/flats in the top of that remote mountain range in Nazca, Peru.

The book is called Chariots of the Gods, I really want to pick it up as soon as I get the chance.

[Randomness]

Misconception #1, after over a thousand years of whose history are you speaking of?
This certainly wasn't the civilization most historians believe modern day man came from.
Since these structures pre-date modern civilization.
So that is moot point really...the big mystery is WHO built these.

What does erosion have to do with the absolutely minute of details on these massive scales of
rock? If anything, that's saying theses structures could have been even more grandiose than what they are now. The fact that the details even exist is the baffling part.
And I can assure you I said MOST modern technology, I'm not even sure how lasers work to be completely honest, so I really don't have much to say about that.
Protip:The youngest of these structures(of puma punku) can be dated to well beyond 500 B.C. So that's 2500 years old atleast.


What does this have to do with anything?
Include those too then.
Also, the structures of stonehenge are nowhere near this level of detail, though that is a completely different discussion altogether.
If anything the structures of puma punku make stonehenge look like a rough draft, and the relics of tihuanaco look like the finished edition.

Ok, you go take a hammer and chisel to a 500 yard long slab of granite in a perfectly straight line, then tell me how it goes.

These Stones are impossibly huge, and the level of detail is on par with what we can do today, that's what I wanted to discuss, not why the histry chanl sux.
.

One thousand years is one thousand years. From the image, it looks to be a desert-ish region, and wind+sand=erosion

There have been actual experiments that show it is very possible to create a stonehenge structure with nothing more than rope, logs, and manpower. (Logs=wheels=almost no friction)

Really, bring me proof that said lines are perfectly straight. Then I'll show you proof someone is fudging evidence. 500 yards perfectly straight... wouldn't last for even 100 years. Why? Because of weathering. Weathering is chaotic.

Also, it would be possible to cut a mostly-straight line, if you had time and patience. The wider the line, the easier it is. Roman stonecutters were able to make very precise, straight-edged cuts in stone. (Albeit not as hard as granite, but that's beside the point, the precision exists)

The fact is, if there's some incredible level of detail in something 1,000+ years old, then someone is lying. Something exposed to the elements just won't last 100% for that long.

Without seeing high-res images though, I can't really do much more than speculate. (And neither can you.) If your evidence for impressive detail is someone on TV saying that, you have issues. People lie all the time because they don't want to be wrong. There are even scientific studies (this time, related to politics, but more generally applicable) in which people are observed to think using emotion rather than logic in choosing political candidates. Any evidence contrary to their view, they invent convoluted or fallacious reasons to ignore.

[Adriano]

One thousand years is one thousand years. From the image, it looks to be a desert-ish region, and wind+sand=erosion

And I know this.
But that doesn't explain how alot of the design is still visible, and though there IS no way for me to say for sure(as there is no way for you to say otherwise), the Gigantic "H" Structures look just about as symmetrical as any monument that can be erected today, should the edges and corners of it be restored, I'd actually bet they were exactly even.
http://z.hubpages.com/u/893279_f260.jpg



There have been actual experiments that show it is very possible to create a stonehenge structure with nothing more than rope, logs, and manpower. (Logs=wheels=almost no friction)


And that's fine, though the heaviest rocks of Stonehenge weigh around 26-30? tons, that is nothing in comparison to some of these structures, I doubt theres something sturdy enough to move these such as that. (unless you can really use a conveyer belt syster to move something that weighs OVER 1 and a half million pounds.)



Really, bring me proof that said lines are perfectly straight. Then I'll show you proof someone is fudging evidence. 500 yards perfectly straight... wouldn't last for even 100 years. Why? Because of weathering. Weathering is chaotic.
http://z.hubpages.com/u/893292_f260.jpg
Perfectly straight? Maybe not, but this is precise enough to give me reasonable doubt, as to where they came from.



Also, it would be possible to cut a mostly-straight line, if you had time and patience. The wider the line, the easier it is. Roman stonecutters were able to make very precise, straight-edged cuts in stone. (Albeit not as hard as granite, but that's beside the point, the precision exists)

The fact is, if there's some incredible level of detail in something 1,000+ years old, then someone is lying. Something exposed to the elements just won't last 100% for that long.

And? The structures of Puma Punku predate those even by a good half a millenia, and that is besides the point, the question still stands on how these structures were stacked and assembled in such a geometrical way, that they are still in erect form today.



Without seeing high-res images though, I can't really do much more than speculate. (And neither can you.)

This I can actually agree with... I'll just agree to disagree with you (on whatever it is you are disagreeing with me about, I don't even.), because it's starting to just sound like you're looking for any reason to refute the structures of puma punku, for some reason. Though I appreciate your input, I tend to draw the line at....

If your evidence for impressive detail is someone on TV saying that, you have issues.
Personal attacks.



People lie all the time because they don't want to be wrong. There are even scientific studies (this time, related to politics, but more generally applicable) in which people are observed to think using emotion rather than logic in choosing political candidates. Any evidence contrary to their view, they invent convoluted or fallacious reasons to ignore.

Irrelevant subject. Since it's hard to lie about physical structures, that anyone can go see. Whereas choosing politicians is mainly a mental thing.
I'm glad you expressed your opinion however. ;)

[Randomness]

So... me saying that people on TV are not necessarily trustworthy... is a personal attack? And actually, its very easy to lie about physical structures. The thing about politics was relevant because it deals with how people decide on what to believe.

Those pics do not look out of the ordinary to me, compared to Roman architectural accomplishments.

Ultimately, your argument (Well, the argument a lot of people on certain shows on the history channel) seems to be that doubt is conclusive evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. That would be the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. (A->B, ~A, therefore ~B)

Ultimately, I take more offense at the whole 2012 nonsense. The Mayan calender started in around 3,000 BC, and I assure you that the world did not actually BEGIN then.

[Adriano]

So... me saying that people on TV are not necessarily trustworthy... is a personal attack?
The way I see it, when you are talking to someone, the term 'you' should be used lightly, especially if it is used in an accusational way, there is no way for me to discern whether it was directed at me or not.



And actually, its very easy to lie about physical structures. (Shroud of Turin, in which its obvious one side or the other is very, very wrong) The thing about politics was relevant because it deals with how people decide on what to believe.
I said it's hard to lie about something that anyone and everyone can see, the Structures of Tiahuanaco/Puma punku can be visited, toured, taken pictures of, posed with, etc.
So, it would be difficult to hide a huge fallacy in it's composition, whereas the shroud of turin is locked up in some old vault somewhere, and then it's unveiled in a glass casing every 25 years.
That's hardly the same.



Those pics do not look out of the ordinary to me, compared to Roman architectural accomplishments.

Of course they don't look out of the ordinary to you now, it's how we do things.
This was NOT commonplace 3,000 years ago however.


Ultimately, your argument (Well, the argument a lot of people on certain shows on the history channel) seems to be that doubt is conclusive evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. That would be the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. (A->B, ~A, therefore ~B)
I never said this.
Though I can see why people would think that.

And reasonable doubt IS enough reason for conclusive evidence, they've built a trial system around it, it's known as the JURY SYSTEM.
As long as there is a reason to believe otherwise, and if you are looking at a situation objectively with emotions completely disassociated, you would see there is logical reasoning for that belief.

I don't even know why we're talking about belief, what exactly is it that one of us doesn't believe anyway?



Ultimately, I take more offense at the whole 2012 nonsense. The Mayan calender started in around 3,000 BC, and I assure you that the world did not actually BEGIN then.

The mayans most certainly weren't the first, they were probably just the ones who made the biggest stir, though I don't really buy into that whole 2012 armaggeddon thing anyway.

[Epically Leet]

So... me saying that people on TV are not necessarily trustworthy... is a personal attack?

Did you really say just that...? No.



Without seeing high-res images though, I can't really do much more than speculate. (And neither can you.) If your evidence for impressive detail is someone on TV saying that, you have issues.

That's what you said. I always thought "you have issues" = insult. And you used it just like he had issues for believing it the details he had been provided but can't prove. This also brings me to your claim:


There are even scientific studies (this time, related to politics, but more generally applicable) in which people are observed to think using emotion rather than logic in choosing political candidates

What makes you believe in that so fully? Were you ever there?

By your logic, we can't believe in anything. Or at least, that's what I've picked up. I mean, it's not like books are any more trustworthy because they have written texts rather than people speaking on a TV documentary.

[Adriano]

I used an analogy about Jane, but it was erroneous, so I took it out. =x
Anyway guys, this was a nice discussion, I'd love to hear/read other people's opinions on the structures of Tihuanaco. :wacko:

[Epically Leet]

Yeah... People seem to stay away from this thread. XD

[astuarlen]

If you're actually interested in reading about the Tiwanaku empire and their architectural legacy, it would be worthwhile to seek out some scholarly sources on the matter.

Just a couple very basic tidbits from the only physical source I have at hand, Rebecca Stone-Miller's Art of the Andes (one of my old texts from my Precolumbian art history course and, while not the most exhaustive resource, a more-than-adequate overview of various cultures in the region examined through the lens of art, architecture, and artifacts):
The Tiwanaku flourished mainly during the Middle Horizon period, and monuments like Puma Punku and the Kalasasaya were probably constructed around Tiwanaku's height between 400 and 800 CE. These structures are not "10 miles away from any civilization"; they were at the heart of a sophisticated society that flourished about 1500 years ago and whose 10-sq-km capital was home to 30-70,000 residents. According to Jean-Pierre Protzen, the stones used at these sites were standardized and mass-produced using chisels and files, in conjunction with regular measuring instruments. Carved grooves suggest ropes were used to move some stones, while "metal cast directly into T- and I-shaped sockets" helped hold the stones together (128 ).


Misconception #1, after over a thousand years of whose history are you speaking of?
This certainly wasn't the civilization most historians believe modern day man came from.
Since these structures pre-date modern civilization.
So that is moot point really...the big mystery is WHO built these.

So by "modern man" you mean Western Europeans, I guess? Because I'd venture to say that there are modern descendants of the Tiwanaku, just as there are modern descendants of the imperial Romans, Egyptians, Ottomans, etc.


A couple sources taken from the Selected Bibliography of my text, which should provide more comprehensive, well-researched information:

Jean-Pierre Protzen and Stella E. Nair, "On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, 3, September 2000.

Alan Kolata The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization (Blackwell Publishers, 1993).


I miss University.

[Adriano]

If you're actually interested in reading about the Tiwanaku empire and their architectural legacy, it would be worthwhile to seek out some scholarly sources on the matter.

Just a couple very basic tidbits from the only physical source I have at hand, Rebecca Stone-Miller's Art of the Andes (one of my old texts from my Precolumbian art history course and, while not the most exhaustive resource, a more-than-adequate overview of various cultures in the region examined through the lens of art, architecture, and artifacts):
The Tiwanaku flourished mainly during the Middle Horizon period, and monuments like Puma Punku and the Kalasasaya were probably constructed around Tiwanaku's height between 400 and 800 CE. These structures are not "10 miles away from any civilization"; they were at the heart of a sophisticated society that flourished about 1500 years ago and whose 10-sq-km capital was home to 30-70,000 residents. According to Jean-Pierre Protzen, the stones used at these sites were standardized and mass-produced using chisels and files, in conjunction with regular measuring instruments. Carved grooves suggest ropes were used to move some stones, while "metal cast directly into T- and I-shaped sockets" helped hold the stones together (128 ).


So by "modern man" you mean Western Europeans, I guess? Because I'd venture to say that there are modern descendants of the Tiwanaku, just as there are modern descendants of the imperial Romans, Egyptians, Ottomans, etc.


A couple sources taken from the Selected Bibliography of my text, which should provide more comprehensive, well-researched information:

Jean-Pierre Protzen and Stella E. Nair, "On Reconstructing Tiwanaku Architecture," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, 3, September 2000.

Alan Kolata The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization (Blackwell Publishers, 1993).


I miss University.
Finally, some more information on the matter.

And Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
Thanks for the info Astuar! :wacko:
I guess my random number spoutting got a bit out of hand.

Though in reference to the "10 miles away.." thing, I think the documentary I was watching, was referring to modern day cities.
Which if you think about it, is really irrelevant. :lol:


Though, I'm still finding it hard to believe that such an old society, had the technology to move such objects.

The method seems quite realistic in today's sense, though how they would have known to do that is beyond me.

[Sinue_v2]

Aw Christ, more History Channel bunk.

My advice... keep in mind that the History Channel has no incentive to be accurate. They won't lie... but they'll pull every trick in the book to homogenize a topic so evenly that they can even give the impression that the geocentric model may just have something to it... after all. They're entertaining you. That's all. By the end of the program, you're going to believe whatever the hell you want to believe, because they're going to load your confirmation bias to full tilt and then say you can be the judge.

Hey, you know... that's the same trick the ID movement pulled. Worked great in the public forum where people were presented with the illusion of equal merit and equal worth to each idea so as to allow them to feel like they're being open minded and considerate of new ideas while really they were just hamstringing science by attempting to circumvent the need for evidence and falsification process. Guess what happened in a forum where evidence is required, and rigid definitions of what qualifies for evidence are applied to determine whether or not both ideas really had equal merit? Comedy. That's what.

If you're just looking for some irreverent entertainment, History Channel is fine. Just don't be surprised if the evidence in reality doesn't quite hold up to a more critical analysis, and don't be surprised if people start getting a bit miffed if they get the impression that all that effort they're putting forth to defend the hard earned knowledge which sustains our society is going for naught but to feed the promotion of some "anti-establishment" self-stroking Prometheus image.


And before you to try to brush off criticism of the History Channel as groundless ad hominem, I think you should outline briefly why it is that you consider them a reliable source of information. Explain why it is you think that being supported by advertisement revenue would not introduce a significant bias which skews the information they present?

...


I don't even know why we're talking about belief, what exactly is it that one of us doesn't believe anyway?


Though, I'm still finding it hard to believe that such an old society, had the technology to move such objects.

I think the issue with the above quotations are almost poetically self-evident, especially given the point that Randomness was trying to get across. You just pulled the pulled the soccer equivalent to getting turned around on the field and scoring a goal for the other team.



And reasonable doubt IS enough reason for conclusive evidence, they've built a trial system around it, it's known as the JURY SYSTEM.

You're confusing your standards of evidence with the standards of evidence in a court of law with the standards of evidence in science. They are not the same. Science is NOT a Jury System where reasonable doubt can be debated and haggled over. Science is a not a democracy where everybody gets to have their views respected and the one with the most convincing or believable bullshit line gets their idea promoted. Science is a tyranny of evidence.

[Adriano]

If you're just looking for some irreverent entertainment, History Channel is fine. Just don't be surprised if the evidence in reality doesn't quite hold up to a more critical analysis, and don't be surprised if people start getting a bit miffed if they get the impression that all that effort they're putting forth to defend the hard earned knowledge which sustains our society is going for naught but to feed the promotion of some "anti-establishment" self-stroking Prometheus image.


And before you to try to brush off criticism of the History Channel as groundless ad hominem, I think you should outline briefly why it is that you consider them a reliable source of information. Explain why it is you think that being supported by advertisement revenue would not introduce a significant bias which skews the information they present?

I never exclusively said the Histroy Channel was the Moral and Ethical authority when it came to facts based on historical events. But, even if I did, isn't holding the same amount of contempt for anything they have to say right off the bat, just as bad as somebody who absolutely believes everything they hear from the history channel to begin with? I think it goes both ways.






I think the issue with the above quotations are almost poetically self-evident, especially given the point that Randomness was trying to get across. You just pulled the pulled the soccer equivalent to getting turned around on the field and scoring a goal for the other team.

Those quotes are from different points in this discussion, the belief I was talking about to Randomness is not the same belief I was referring to with Ast.
I think before we were disagreeing about one of us not believing or believing in something (that I'm not even sure has to do with Puma Punku), I'm not even exactly sure what that discussion was about.

With Astuar's post I actually have something to respond to, that actually pertains to the relics.
So it's not the same thing, and taking my posts out of context doesn't prove anything. ;)




You're confusing your standards of evidence with the standards of evidence in a court of law with the standards of evidence in science. They are not the same. Science is NOT a Jury System where reasonable doubt can be debated and haggled over. Science is a not a democracy where everybody gets to have their views respected and the one with the most convincing or believable bullshit line gets their idea promoted. Science is a tyranny of evidence.

And what evidence are we even discussing here is my point?
That the history channel is debunked? Not yet have I seen a post saying something valid to discredit the ruins of puma punku. (aside from astuar's post, which actually gave examples of how they were believed to have moved these stones.)

Though I can see what you are getting at, and I will give you that... maybe an analogy against the jury system wasn't the best approach, but you can't discount the fact that there is reasonable doubt in science, since that is why theories are formed.
And laws are then created from the exploration of those theories.
So in a way reasonable doubt is the cause of the 'tyranny of evidence'.


I would just like to explore the possible reasons as to how these massive stones were created at such a scale, with such primitive technology.(Well maybe not primitive, just unkown.)
The hyper-critical analytical attitude(towards my posts, not towards the ruins) I've received is highly distasteful...though I appreciate the discussion.

[Sinue_v2]

I never exclusively said the Histroy Channel was the Moral and Ethical authority when it came to facts based on historical events.

Which point are you referring two? There's two possibly relevant topics there which can (and often are) correlated with morality/ethics. The breakdown of which I'm going to need more context to address properly.

One being a derision of "anti-establishment" personalities which are a special breed of twats who tend to flock to fringe and conspiracy theories looking for "truth", and will construct comfortable fantasies regardless of evidence or reason. Those who don't accept the theory (and by extension, them) are written off as "blind sheep" or "sleep walkers" who are beyond redemption - and contention to their claims only reinforces their beliefs. Perhaps as a coping mechanism for dealing with the frustration of poor social skills. Possibly indicative of narcissism. I call them "Prometheus", because they seem to see themselves as tortured light bearers - though the joke comes if you remember a certain other fallen light bearer. VenomFangX (PCS) is a perfect example.

The other topic I was referring to was the introduction of bias to information by the adoption of advertiser revenue. Though the issue of morality and ethics certain applies, I didn't mean to make a moral judgment of the model - or suggest that there is any such thing as a moral authority to facts. That in itself is a contraction, since facts are objective and can be verified by multiple independent observation. The assignment of morality to a fact is only applicable subjectively. For instance the phrase; "He died an honorable death" - the "honorable" part can be debated based on morality, but that he died generally tends to be pretty reliably consistent.

However, I only meant to draw the contrast between consumer based and advertiser based revenue models in publications in regards to verifiable accuracy. Basically... advertiser models allow the cost of publication to be picked up almost entirely by the advertiser in exchange for putting their ads in that magazine. This allows the consumer to pay next to nothing for access to it's contents, and the ads get seen by a far larger viewership. A consequence of this is that there is a constant battle for your attention being waged. So not only is there a temptation on the part of the publication to dumb down content to the lowest common denominator, but a tendency to only follow popular trends and to over hype and sensationalize their stories. Beyond that, there's the temptation for a prominent advertiser to "pressure" a publisher to slant their story towards the advertisers viewpoint or a certain issue or demographic under threat of pulling advertising money.

Conversely, consumer based publication models rely primarily on the buyer of the publication. By doing this, the price of the publication skyrockets and demand drops. Publishers will then specialize so as to cater to a very select market so as to serve a specific and necessary role where quality drives demand. This is how Scientific Journals operate. Though while not 100% ensured - academic honesty and a properly applied expert peer review process establish their reputation and demand by establishing validity of hypothesis which fuels debate, discovery, and progress.

This is why, for the purposes of establishing validity in a claim, I give more consideration to sources published in Peer-Review literature than I do claims sourced from the History Channel.

I hope that cleared things up a bit.


isn't holding the same amount of contempt for anything they have to say right off the bat, just as bad as somebody who absolutely believes everything they hear from the history channel to begin with?

You're absolutely correct in that. It is every bit as foolish to reject everything you are told from a source, as it to accept everything you hear from a source. Individual claims must be evaluated by the merits of their validity. But there comes a point when consistent patterns of common uncorrected misconceptions, unchecked speculation, asserted opinions, etc, keep repeating themselves that the cost in time and effort to weed out all the bullshit becomes greater than the benefit of the substantiated claims.

This doesn't mean you assert that they are wrong by default, but rather that their credibility has been too highly compromised to waste time with. Not right or wrong by default - they're irrelevant. To quote the first sentience in the first paragraph in my first post in the thread; "keep in mind that the History Channel has no incentive to be accurate. They won't lie... but they'll pull every trick in the book to homogenize a topic."

So yeah... there is good information on the History Channel... but you spend so much time trying to prune it back from what is not accurate, that it's easier to just enjoy the program for entertainment value only - then suspend any questions it raised to be addressed via more credible sources.

Falsus in uno; Falsus in omnibus.
I don't fault for honest mistakes. Shit happens. But when shit happens far too often, isn't corrected, and starts becoming part of the standardized format so as to pander to Never-Never Landers? No thanks, I got better shit to do.


Those quotes are from different points in this discussion, the belief I was talking about to Randomness is not the same belief I was referring to with Ast.

But belief has everything to do with it, because it's the institution of belief itself that can cause the problem. Belief is a contextual word that designates that you hold a pre-established position on a subject. That's not the problem... because we all have current opinions about subjects. The problem is that belief can be evidence optional. As our society continues to progress technologically, socially, and globally at the ever accelerating pace of information - evidence based beliefs becomes increasingly crucial to determining what information is beneficial or harmful to your health and finances. The trend of mixing fact & fantasy belief structures should be discouraged, not accelerated.

When you stated that you had trouble believing that such and old civilization had the technology to move those stones - honestly tell me what inference you made from that belief. You'd dropped hints at alien intervention, but what possible evidence is there for it? Why did it have to be aliens, and not the flying spaghetti monster? What about Hercules traveling through a time warp? They are all every bit as evidence supported as aliens doing it. Anything could have been possible. The stone could have gotten up and walked there, while nanobot goblins from the X Dimension carved it's features.

But how probable is any of it? Without evidence... how can you establish probability?

How many avenues of far more mundane solutions which could have been proposed and tested which you didn't even consider because it was just so unbelievable that they had the capability to move it? Something so incredibly simple and low-tech used in a clever fashion that you are not used to - because you live in a society which has high technology. That the "alien" mover idea came to your mind, because you live in a society which has a popular belief in alien visitation.

THAT... is confirmation bias.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34BhEgO_es

And this is even applicable visually. For example, see if you can correctly follow the basketball and tell me if you get it right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4


And what evidence are we even discussing here is my point?
That the history channel is debunked? Not yet have I seen a post saying something valid to discredit the ruins of puma punku.

I haven't even engaged the topic of Puma Punku, and I never had a mindset to "discredit" the site. I may or may not look into addressing certain claims to see what I can find about it depending on whether or not I think the discussion would actually be worth researching. Why bother doing the work to research claims pro and con when History Channel's... ah, History... is less than stellar in these regards, and there's a possibility that you might not really give a damn about what the evidence may or may not say if it doesn't conform to a preconception. If I don't care and you don't care... waste of time.


but you can't discount the fact that there is reasonable doubt in science

In a round about way, perhaps... because science is a process of falsification. We can't prove anything, because anything is possible. To prove something, we'd have to test each and every one of an infinite number of explanations and in all possible scenarios. It's more efficient to just shoot down ideas proposed about what may be with our current understanding of the evidence. So we'll never know everything about anything with 100% certainty... and the rest becomes reasonable doubt. Even if we know we're wrong, we still use what best understanding we have until evidence tips the scale towards another explanation. Newton was wrong about physics, and it's still wrong today.


I would just like to explore the possible reasons as to how these massive stones were created at such a scale, with such primitive technology.

Possible or probable? :D


The hyper-critical analytical attitude(towards my posts, not towards the ruins) I've received is highly distasteful...though I appreciate the discussion.

Yeah, I've been called a hyper-critical asshole a few times. But dammit, I like technology - and medicine - and clean water - and videogames to play Phantasy Star on... so it bothers me when certain jaded antisocial fuckheads want to poison the well because they think they're Neo fighting the Matrix.

(And I have no pretension to play Agent Smith. .... He posts over at JREF anyhow.)

[Adriano]

You know Sinue, I was actually dreading your reply at first.
..but I actually enjoyed it. :lol:
The awareness test in specific...totally got me. :wacko:

[Epically Leet]

[No input specified]

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

[No input specified]
A
"blank"
as a reply is exactly 5 characters. You don't do the quotations of course, -2.

long read; but will do it later

GG moonwalking bear. Awareness Advertisement.

[Epically Leet]

My mental system got overloaded from the wall of text. Created a blank in there. Couldn't quite communicate.

How stylish is it to say "blank", though?

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

My mental system got overloaded from the wall of text. Created a blank in there. Couldn't quite communicate.

How stylish is it to say "blank", though?
I was thinking of saying blank in a thread lately, no particular kind of thread. So I just needed to get it out, and this was a prime opportunity!

About as stylish as "i dont even" or a "tl;dr" I guess.

Blankman, was a superhero name too. Bad comedic movie one, though.

[Epically Leet]

Ah, okay.

As soon as I read "tl;dr" I think "WTF, someone sure made a typo!", btw. It does not look like an acronym...