How would you answer: Archeology

by sabastious 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  james_woods

  I am starting to get peaved with the History Channel in particular... it seems to be becoming the National Enquirer of TV. It's so frustrating that an acclaimed network like the History channel is letting greed get the best of them, IMO. The more "scandalous" their content the more viewers they have and of course make more on ads.

  I have to agree, and posted the same thing a day or two ago. For one thing, they have simply gone NUTS on "Flying Saucers, Ancient Astronauts, Notradamus, the daVinci Code, and such". I can imagine a lot of credible people without much education believing such stuff as fact.

  A shame really - they used to have much more credible programming.
• 

  PSacramento

  TV shows are all about the ratings and as such, even the Discory and History chanell will put out sensationalist shows because they know controversy sells.

  SInce those shows are stricly based on opinion then, no harm no foul in their POV.

  Heck, its not THEIR fault that someone takes someone else opinion as "gospel", is it?

  As for archeology, like any science it is subject to THE great equalising common denominator: MAN.

  It can make mistakes.
• 

  thetrueone

  It all depends who are the archaeologists.

  Saying that there is little actual evidence is all personal conjecture based on how much that person has studied archeology.

  Religionists are not considered the group to present an honest informative understanding of archeology for most of these findings

  weaken their espoused teachings and the sum of their knowledge of this science is insignificant.

  Its true from time to time certain archaeological findings get overtly hyped prior to a thorough laboratory study,

  but they eventually are and a more concise conclusions are made in the identifying process.
• 

  Terry

  Nothing happens in certain professions.

  There is no sense of forward motion.

  You feel like you are the custodian of a mausoleum.

  Everything is "yesterday'.

  How can a human keep enthusiasm alive without controversy, discovery, speculation and a sense of change?

  I think this applies to the field of Archeology. It is a human need to be a part of something ALIVE.
• 

  ssn587

  archeology theories are just that, they will theorize, and will admittedly most of the time if not all say so. The WT however, puts their theories out as fact and one has to believe them or else. When it is brought to their attention that they have erred, they accuse the person who brings it to their attention.

  New lite is their way of saying oops, but without of course saying so, everything change or alteration is of course new lite. and old lite isn't looked at as being false, it's just old lite.

  they the Wt are great practioners of self delusion and denial.
• 

  JeffT

  I like watching the History channel, and its off shoot the Military channel; but mostly just for the pictures. I'm more familiar with the military history part and they drive me nuts. The usual MO is to set up some whacky idea ("did Elvis shoot JFK?") and then spend an hour beating it to death. I think that what passes as archeology in the popular press is along the same line, aided and abetted by the ratings chase. I suspect that we never here about a lot of the serious work because it doesn't sell magazines and tv shows.

  For a really funny look at archeology get your hands on "Motel of the Mysteries" by David Macualay.
• 

  thetrueone

  Even weak archaeological discoveries can be commercialized into a TV programs, it just has to be enough to grab the publics attention.

  Say I know a religious organization that has been doing something similar for over 100 years, they don't use TV media as such but they do use

  the media of published literature..
• 

  sabastious

  Saying that there is little actual evidence is all personal conjecture based on how much that person has studied archeology.

  Truemyman, I'm not saying that Archeology is a fraud or anything. I just have noticed that sometimes they like to jump the gun while explaining their findings. If they find a spoon it seems like sometimes they want to use it to describe a civilization, you know?

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  archeology theories are just that, they will theorize, and will admittedly most of the time if not all say so. The WT however, puts their theories out as fact and one has to believe them or else. When it is brought to their attention that they have erred, they accuse the person who brings it to their attention.

  I didn't realize how good of a parraell Archeology is to the Watchtower. Archeology jumps the gun and admit they are theorizing... the Watchtower theorizes and it somehow becomes doctrine.

  Facinating!

  -Sab
• 

  thetrueone

  OK Sab If your speaking in terms of a TV show in representing archeology, thats not a exacting representation of what archeology is.

  I don't think thats what your getting at , but someone brought it up.

  One should never form a opinion on archeology by watching a TV show.

  But as I mentioned before some archaeologist do jump the gun on their findings and overly speculate

  on what they have discovered, only to further on by using analytical study, such as cross referencing, come to realize they firstly wrong

  on their findings. The prevailing seeking government and University grants to continue supporting their work may also play a role as well.