Cremo's Response to REM

by ThiChi 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ThiChi

  Cremos Response to REM

  REM asked this regarding Cremos work regarding acelogical evidence:

  ""Why does he spend so much time on these old anomalies? If he were more honest he would spend more time on modern finds instead of giving them brief acknowledgements. The truth is that the older data is not as solid as modern data so it is easier for him to make it say what he wants""

  Dear XXX,

  First of all, I do spend time on modern cases, as anyone can see who reads the book. But let's be clear about my point. I have put before myself the task of examining the entire history of archeology. Not just the most modern cases. So I cannot exclude the older cases. Also, this idea that older data is not as solid as modern data reveals a naive faith in the progress of science. If what this person is saying were true, then we would have to conclude that the only way to get to the truth would be to project ourselves into the unlimited future. The whole concept of some kind of linear perfectability is ridiculous. If we take this person's ideas as correct, then one hundred years from now, what he considers modern will be old, and therefore not solid. So why does he consider it so solid now? Anyways, if you look in any modern book of archeology or human evolution, they will include lots of discoveries from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and they are considered quite solid. The original Neandethal man discoveries came from the 1850s. The Java man discoveries from the 1890s. Australopithecus and Beijing man from the 1920s. Some old evidence is considered solid, and other old evidence is not considered solid, and the reason for this should be examined. I have shown that the main reason some old evidence is considered solid is that it conforms to the theory of evolution, whereas other evidence, which is just as good or better, is considered not solid, just because it contradicts the theory of evolution. I have documented this. In short, one just has to evaluate each particular case on its merits, whether it is old or new. If the person's logic were to be accepted, I guess we should have to throw out Galileo, Newton, and a host of others, including Darwin himself, simply because they are old.

  Sincerely yours,

  Michael A. Cremo

  I must agree the book is very detailed and should be considered. Mr. Cremo as appeared and submitted many papers at various conferences and has rebutted this critics in his second book. I feel he is an honest man and his work should speak for itself.

  Edited by - thichi on 10 November 2002 10:36:43

  Edited by - thichi on 10 November 2002 10:46:16
• 

  Francois

  WHAT book?
• 

  Gedanken

  Thi Chi,

  Cremo does not make the case for scientific "purges." What he's talking about is the filtering of information which must happen. Usually it happens because of advances in understanding. That's why we no longer learn about the ether in physics. Lord Kelvin caused serious concerns about evolution with his estimate of the Sun's lifetime. But that turned out to be incorrect because he (and nobody else) understood quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. However, we can still go back and find the original papers and, as Cremo did, the actual evidence.

  Now, it is impossible to rebut Cremo on a case by case basis without putting a huge amount of effort - equal to that taken to write his book in the first place. Nevertheless, Cremo has made an extraordinary claim - namely that there is a de facto conspiracy to ignore evidence that would call much paleontology and evolutionary theory into question. What I'm missing is why would people do this? As methods get better then it is routine to discard old theories and produce better ones. Witness the development of quantum mechanics. Nobel Prizes and such are associated with such paradigm changes. If someone could prove that humans co-existed with dinosaurs then I have no doubt at all that they would be widely feted. The problem is with the proof. Cremo has to demonstrate beyond doubt, using reproducible scientific techniques that his conclusions are correct. He has not done that and at least some of his findings have been given serious attention and shown to be mistaken (e.g., the blue metal spheres). Now he would argue that these requirements are part of the conspiracy but they aren't. A hot young assistant professor at Harvard would give his or her eye-teeth to find proof that humans were around when Cremo claims. In fact, he or she would likely sell their grandmother into slavery to get such proof - it would be that exciting.

  So, we must examine Cremo's legitimacy since he doesn't have scientific evidence; The first thing is that he has an agenda, which is what he is claiming about evolutionists. However, history shows that scientists are much more willing to abandon theories than religious people their beliefs. Secondly, Cremo i smaking money from his books which are designe dto attract the attention of a certain segment of the population. That is religious fundamentalist types who usually have little scientific background and also have an agenda, even if only a personal one. Thirdly, Cremo included at least one citation to Weekly World News which is unforgivable. How can anyone be taken seriously if they do that.

  So, what it boils down to is that Cremo has to esatblish his case before professionals in the field, not before the general public. There are dozens of pseudo-scientifc books out there that are full of trash but which make their authors tons of money because of the gullibility of people. In fact it would be very easy for a scientist who had the mind to do it, to intentionally write a book like Cremo's. Now, I'm not suggesting that he doesn't believe what he writes, but his argument for why he cannot get his ideas acepted is the same argument as used by proponents of perpetual motion - namely, the establishment refuses to listen to me.

  So how do we proceed? There simply isn't time to examine every harebrained idea. If Cremo's case is important for Creationists then they should spend the time and effort looking into his claims, and do so objectively and dispassionately rather than merely accepting them because they happen to coincide in some aspects with their beliefs.

  There is ample evidence, on the other hand, at the DNA level that evolutionary theory has predictive power - we can predict that an unknown organism will have at least some genes that are similar to humans. The frequency and distributions of these patterns allows phylogenetic trees to be constructed which accord extermely well with observations. So, until something better comes along it makes no sense to abandon a theory with predictive capacity for a set of ideas that cannot, apparently, be defended in scientific circles.

  Gedanken
• 

  rem

  ThiChi,

  This is an interesting response that reminds me of letters that people get back from the Watchtower Society when they ask sincere questions. They get non-answers.

  Cremo wonders why certain old finds are found credible while his favorites are not. It's simple - because those particular old finds are confirmed by modern evidence. There is no modern evidence to confirm Cremo's anomalies, so they are forgotten as bad data. Notice that Cremo still does not offer one solid modern example in his letter, or at least an excerpt from his book. If there is a good one, I'd love to see it, but my hunch is that he doesn't really want the underlying research sources exposed. We might have another Weekly World News on our hands.

  Also, Cremo's understanding of knowledge and science is naive. It is axiomatic that our knowledge progresses as time goes on. This is clearly shown in history, or were ancient people able to send people to the moon and I just don't know about it? Clearly what we know today will be even better understood tomorrow, but that doesn't necessarily mean what we know today is wrong. Some of it is, for sure, but not all of it. Newton wasn't necessarily wrong when Einstein came up with Relativity... Newton was just less accurate. Science keeps building on what we already know, and our knowledge becomes more and more accurate. That is why certain old evidence and theories (such as a young earth, global flood, millions of years old human beings) are discarded as new evidence falsifies them.

  rem
• 

  ThiChi

  "There is no modern evidence to confirm Cremo's anomalies, so they are forgotten as bad data"

  REM: He does have modern case studies. One Example I cited in the other thread. Should those not be considered? Instead of gessing, one should obtain his work and find out.

  G: Pressure is placed on researchers to tow the line. As an example, if you are an open creationist, it is next to impossibe to get a favoerable Peer Review. I know of one who is not openly expressing the outcome, but uses bits and peices as reports are taken.

  ""Anyways, if you look in any modern book of archeology or human evolution, they will include lots of discoveries from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and they are considered quite solid. The original Neandethal man discoveries came from the 1850s. The Java man discoveries from the 1890s. Australopithecus and Beijing man from the 1920s. Some old evidence is considered solid, and other old evidence is not considered solid, and the reason for this should be examined. I have shown that the main reason some old evidence is considered solid is that it conforms to the theory of evolution, whereas other evidence, which is just as good or better, is considered not solid, just because it contradicts the theory of evolution. I have documented this. In short, one just has to evaluate each particular case on its merits, whether it is old or new. ""

  Edited by - thichi on 10 November 2002 18:24:6
• 

  Gedanken

  Thi Chi,

  That's true if you try to include Creation "science" in a paper - just like a paper prmoting the ether would be rejected. The reason isn't prejudice it is lack of evidence for Creationist arguments and actual evidence that they are wrong.

  In addition, the most obviously damning thing against Cremo is the Weekly World News stunt. Honest researcheers would never in a billion years do such as thing.

  Gedanken
• 

  rem

  ThiChi,

  If we could just get the source material for his modern anomalies that would be great. I'm sure you understand why I'm suspicious. One of his 'modern' anomalies turned out to be from the Weekly World News - and that was a 1982 reference. If he needs to use such a source to back up his case in that one modern instance, then it doesn't give me confidence in his other modern anomalies.

  If you happen to have the book, maybe you could cite the sources for the modern anomaly that was described, or at least point us in the right direction. I may or may not have time to go digging and do some research to see if I can get my hands on the original source material.

  This is all I've been asking for - the original source material, or at least the cite so I can look it up for myself.

  rem
• 

  ThiChi

  "If we could just get the source material for his modern anomalies that would be great."

  That is fair enough. However, as Cremo explains, This is documented in his books. I have no ability to scan my copy into this forum (there may be some legal questions too), and I do not want to type the wordy, long information that this would require (the book is over 500 pages(!) With case studies). I have not given the time and study required to relate details effectively. And I will not take any more time away from Mr. Cremo (for now).

  I believe that Mr. Cremo has made a case to at least examine what he puts forth as evidence. Let each one of you decide if the book is woth your time and money to explore Cremo's findings.

  This subject has been really very eye opening:

  The debate we have had this last week has been a blast, IMHO. The points and counter points made, the heated exchange now and then, Cremo replied to some points, and we were even able to throw in some Jw comparisons for good measure! You all have my respect.

  Edited by - thichi on 12 November 2002 10:42:7

  Edited by - thichi on 12 November 2002 16:29:25