"How do scientists KNOW these things?" Topic

That some meteors come from Mars.

Or that bdelloid rotifers have not had sex im 80 million years?

Or that "the odds" of a genetic match are 6 trillion to one?

These "facts" are just thrown at us and we are expected to accept them, because a guy in a white coat says so. Those are the clerical vestments of the 21st Century.
I am not disputing the facts here. Perhaps they ARE true. In fact I sould go so far ass to say that they are probably true also. However, I just see these things presented so often with no "proof" given to the laymen, as if they were Thomist philosophers presenting axioms for God's existence. It is heresy to even bring this up!

I would make a terrible juror in a case with "expert" witesses. Perhaps that is why I have been summoned to jury duty three times and never served on one.

All I want is an explanation, guys. Don't just sneer at me with the "Oh, ye of little faith!" look on your face.

Perhaps it's the fault of the journalism majors who write the articles, and who don't really understand science anyway.

Not to get Fezzy, but that is similar to my reaction when 'scientifics' are sneering/mocking belief in 'invisible sky gods' yet won't even answer a question as to why they accept theories such as 'dark matter,' 'dark energy,' or 'strings.'

As to the hubris of 'scientists,' look at the AGW/ACC debate – it is not just the journalists.

If you ask an astrophysicist, why the accept the high probebility of dark mater ect. They will tell you, if they don't tell you, then you probebly asked in a ironic or sarcastic way, or they aren't that good at their job.

As to strings, far from everybody accept it. but string theory research cost next to nothing, and there are only a few that deal with it. So they can keep at it.

And there is no GW debate, just sane people and idiots.

The scientists I know are more than happy to talk about those things, try to explain them to non-scientists. Sometimes it is hard to get them to talk about anything else. You just have to ask (and yeah, not act as if you are looking to start a fight).

My money's on bad journalism, mostly, although some scientists don't do themselves any favours – my gripe with militant atheists is not their atheism, rather their aggressively arrogant reductionism.

It's a bit of a mouthful to repeat "The observation data we collected are compatible with and add more weight to the argument for Professor X's hypothesis, while appearing incompatible with Professor Y's hypothesis. Within error" every time you present some new discovery.

if you want facts that prove a truth, you probably want to operate under a different metaphysic entirely – religion is probably the one for you.

As an ex-geoscientist, I'm used to working under a regime where we can't "prove" anything. Instead, we can build hypotheses that are consistent with modern physics, chemistry and mechanics and text those with observations.

It's ironic that geologists are often regarded as some of the poorest scientists, as they face some of the biggest philosophical scientific conundrums on a daily basis (and cope mostly by ignoring them, it has to be said).

And, in Italy, get charged for manslaughter because of earthquakes.

This is why the term 'Theory' is used a lot.

I haven't noticed the sentiment that 'geologists are poor scientists'… but they're rumored to have the best parties.
The worst scientists I've met are the ones who let their funding guide their findings. A guy doing forensic work for the police, a professor who at a chemical plant who told us there was no smog in the city.

Science, mathematics, and probability, John. If you do some digging, you can pretty easily find out how scientists know these things.

For example, regarding meteorites from Mars: link

The same holds true for dating techniques, genetics, dark matter theory, etc.

As for the journalism involved, the editor has the last call. If he has 6 column inches to fill, and the article as submitted is 10 column inches, 4 inches has to go, and that might include the "how do we know" part. It's not that the editor or journalist is "bad," it's just the economics of the thing.

As online journalism and blogging becomes more widespread, you see more and more links to more detailed information and explanations that interrupt the flow of the main article.

Because.

If you'll forgive the small rant, if you're really curious about one or more of these things, it is INCREDIBLY EASY to find most of this stuff online via Google and other tools. I realize that it's even easier to slight scientists, engineers, and journalists, but that seems like the height of laziness to me.

Looks like the dark matter theory is going down to defeat, anyway… sort of a shame, it seemed a good idea…

It all falls to mistaken belief by people that anything spouted by "The Educated" is beyond reproach, when in fact education neither ensures intelligence or the truthfulness and accuracy of anything they say. Add in the fact that education is a big money maker that needs people to believe in it to keep the money flowing gives even more room for doubt. Do I even have to go into the "educated" twisting their facts to benefit themselves or those they support at the expense of the truth they claim to be looking for?

jpattern, the issue is not whether we can find the information ourselves, but the bland statement of a theory as fact. Sometimes that is shorthand for truly accepted scientific theory, gravity for instance.

The issue arises when there is some reasonable dispute and the burden of proof should rely on the author to make his own case rather than the reader to look up the threory that supports his proposition

The trouble is that we've reached the point where science at the cutting edge is insanely complex; the days when you could have a good working knowledge of pretty much everything are long gone, so there's no truly convincing "layman's explanation" any more. You can look up the broad basics on wikipedia as often as not, but if you want PROOF you're going to need to take a seriously advanced course. Hell I don't KNOW how my television works in any meaningful sense, never mind anything more complicated….

You know the old chestnut that "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic"…? Well, to all intents and purposes, we're there…. If you want to understand the cutting edge of any particular bit of science or technology, you have to specialise and spend a lot of time working your way through it. So it's either do that, distrust everything, or cautiously accept the word of those who have spent the years working in that field. (With of course, all the usual reservations about where their funding comes from in particular….)

I think people have a bit of a skewed perception of science.

One of the most fundamental problems is the assumption that if Joe doesn't understand something or it sounds a bit strange, Joe's common sense still prevails, a bit like the argument from ignorance fallacy. "I don't understand it, therefore it must be made up."

The media also play a large role into this. Newspaper reports like "Einstein got it wrong." or "Boffins say Dark Matter theory is ripe for the rubbish bin." reporting with a mix of spite and schadenfreude. Ditto for Hollywood where your average scientist is a dogmatic idiot, while the lone brilliant individual who has been ostracised by the scientific community always gets it right.

This is reinforced by the near infinite list of all the things science ever got wrong or had to change. "Scientists said that if you went over 30 miles per hour you would die, or scientists didn't believe a man could fly until the Wright brothers (remember the lone, ostracised individuals ???) Either these are just urban legends, exaggerations, or the opinions of an individual that was passed off as the general consensus.

Yes, there are cases where scientists did make mistakes (Piltdown man for instance), but bad science eventually gets found out, even if it takes a while and even then the mistakes doesn't mean the whole of science is wrong and that every scientist is a crook.

Another problem is that lots of non-scientists have been using the term to promote something "scientifically proven" or "scientifically tested" is often a very dubious claim, it reinforces the idea that science is all about truth and that every theory is inviolate, but the reality is very different and if you do come up with a better theory than Einstein, then your theory will replace it. In science there are few if any absolutes and truth isn't one of them.

Public skepticism is usually vented with the all mighty "funding" argument, as if scientists were only busy inventing convoluted lies so they could get their share of the pie. If you do want to make money, just write a book about Atlantis or that Jesus was an alien, getting funding is a lot harder and last time I checked most funded scientists don't drive Ferrari's. Besides bad science gets bad results and for every crook there are enough honest scientists that will bust crackpot theories wide open.

"Science doesn't know everything." Or shorthand for "Scientists have got it completely wrong, believe me, thunder is the Gods bowling."

Yes there are cases when science gets it wrong, but to be distrustful of everything on the basis of a generalisation in the vein of "All cops are criminals, politicians are corrupt and scientists are arrogant incompetents …" is just as wrong.

"It all falls to mistaken belief by people that anything spouted by "The Educated" is beyond reproach, when in fact education neither ensures intelligence or the truthfulness and accuracy of anything they say"

Whereas "the Uneducated" are right twice a day.

An old Richard Feynman story springs to mind (paraphrasing liberally – I'm going from memory here, but you get the gist): He was doing the interview circuit after getting his Nobel prize for his work in quantum mechanics, and in one TV spot he was asked if he could explain what he got the prize for in a couple of minutes. He floundered at this, and in the cab home afterwards was chatting to the taxi driver, saying how frustrated he was with himself for the failing. To which the taxi driver replied "if you could explain it in 2 minutes it would hardly be worth a Nobel prize, would it…?"

yet won't even answer a question as to why they accept theories such as 'dark matter,' 'dark energy,' or 'strings.'

They accept them as a working hypothesis which can be investigated and the truth, or otherwise, can be ascertained.

In science disproving things is almost as good as proving things.

(Oh, and at a basic level "true" and "prove" are both handy shorthand terms that don't have much place in science. Science is about explaining what we see happen, and moving on if your old explanation is disproved – you can't prove that a theory is true, since knowledge is always incomplete – you run with it as long as it works, and replace it if it's disproved.)

@The Editor

A quick google search of dark matter seems to contradict your statement.

@goragrad

According to peer reviewed publications there is no scientific debate on AGW. There is a pretty clear consensus. This is an example of the "debate" that occurs outside of science; in the courtrooms, in the press, the blogoshere, and in school board meetings. In this way AGW denialism shares characteristics with evolution denialism, vaccination denialism, holocaust denialism, etc. How this proves the hubris of scientists is beyond me.

@Patrick R

Well said, my friend. I hope others will reread you post..

@John the OFM

I may have a 10% probability to share genetic marker A with you (1 in 10). I may have a 1% probability to share genetic marker B with you (1 in 100). Therefore, the probability that we both share markers A and B is .1% (1 in 1000). Once we look at 10 or 15 markers it is easy to get numbers like 1 in 100,000,000 or even greater.

It doesn't mean we "know" anything more than the mathematical probability of an identical match.

Beware of the common logical fallacy of the "argument from ignorance".

This is why the term 'Theory' is used a lot.

True, but that word has just as much misunderstanding around it as "truth" and "proof". It runs from "hypothesis backed by observations" to "this guy in the bar said…".

My take is that a disproved scientific theory is no "worse" than an extinct species. Both have had their day in the sun and gone and, despite what some folks would tell us, that carries no moral judgement on their effectiveness and value at the time.

Patrick R – great post. I always take Continental Drift as the ultimate example of what science can can achieve in the face of vested interests. Wegener was pooh-poohed by the scientific establishment in his time, his career shamefully destroyed, but by the 50s the evidence for his theory was compelling.

Science can be suppressed, but it takes Lysenko and the gulag to silence us. And even then, Kuhn and Popper forgot to say that sometimes all it takes for the truth to spring free is for the old guard to die off…

Indeed some disproved theories remain incredibly useful; Newton's idea of how the universe works is definitely "wrong", but for most common applications it's close enough to be good enough, and vastly simpler than the stuff that superceded it. So while disproved, Newtonian mechanics is still amazingly handy.

The scientific literacy displayed in this thread is gratifying to see. Good job, guys.

Indeed. So I needn't add anything more, other than to say, yes, we do throw the best parties!

@John the OFM

I may have a 10% probability to share genetic marker A with you (1 in 10). I may have a 1% probability to share genetic marker B with you (1 in 100). Therefore, the probability that we both share markers A and B is .1% (1 in 1000). Once we look at 10 or 15 markers it is easy to get numbers like 1 in 100,000,000 or even greater.

Where I have a problem is in the multiplying of the probabilities. I am not convinced that that is the proper step to take. One has to assume that these markers are totally unrelated, and I SUSPECT that that might not be the case.
Certainly a Mandrill babboon's blue ass and the ability of a black widow spider to produce venom are probably unrelated, but are human characteristics?

MY ORIGINAL POINT is not that these are wrong, it is that "scientists" cannot be bothered to explain why. We the laymen are expected to accept as fact what they cannot even agree on between themselves. I "did" science for a few years, so I know how it's done.

I am taking the "bdelloid rotifers" from a story that Pictors posted earlier. 80 million years without sex? A simple explanation would have been both instructive AND amusing, but it is nowhere in that article, unless I missed it.

" I always take Continental Drift as the ultimate example of what science can can achieve in the face of vested interests. Wegener was pooh-poohed by the scientific establishment in his time, his career shamefully destroyed, but by the 50s the evidence for his theory was compelling."

Wegener's hypothesis was one of many at the time and it was attacked like the others because part of his theory was wrong/incomplete and some of the evidence such as the ocean ridges was not fully understood at the time.

So, yes Wegener was attacked, but he wasn't the only one, but the difference is that his hypothesis turned out to be correct even if he made some erroneous assumptions.

Scientists don't attack the correct theories because they are right, but they try to weed out the wrong ones, it's a harsh and sometimes painful process, but it makes sure that the more likely objective explanation prevails.

It all falls to mistaken belief by people that anything spouted by "The Educated" is beyond reproach, when in fact education neither ensures intelligence or the truthfulness and accuracy of anything they say.

I think you'll easily find that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and level of education. Btw, in science, nothing is beyond reproach. Just show the data.

Add in the fact that education is a big money maker that needs people to believe in it to keep the money flowing gives even more room for doubt.

Well, in my country, higher education is an expensive proposition, for the institution and for the student. Personally, I believe in education, not because it is a money maker as you assert. I believe in it because I see the benefits of being educated and wish those benefits for everyone. What "room for doubt" are you talking about?

Do I even have to go into the "educated" twisting their facts to benefit themselves or those they support at the expense of the truth they claim to be looking for?

Since you brought it up……yes! Please provide a specific example.

Where I have a problem is in the multiplying of the probabilities. I am not convinced that that is the proper step to take.

Sorry, that is how probabilities work..

Most scientific literature gives laymen headaches because while published papers are supposed to be open to everyone to examine, nobody bothers explaining everything as you would a twelve year old.

Most of our science info is usually published in popular science magazines by people who are not experts in the field and may skip some details or failed to simplify certain explanations.

Where I have a problem is in the multiplying of the probabilities. I am not convinced that that is the proper step to take.

Sorry, that is how probabilities work..

Only when you ASSUME that they are unrelated.

Where I have a problem is in the multiplying of the probabilities. I am not convinced that that is the proper step to take. One has to assume that these markers are totally unrelated, and I SUSPECT that that might not be the case.
Certainly a Mandrill babboon's blue ass and the ability of a black widow spider to produce venom are probably unrelated, but are human characteristics?

With the ever-increasing size of DNA databases that's easily checked – if they're related, they'll show up together in the same person more often than we'd expect, if they're not, they won't. With millions of people in the larger DNA databases, it's well past being an issue – there's a big enough data set that for any remotely common genetic marker, there are more than enough examples to tell whether it normally crops up alongside another one or whether they're independent.

" Where I have a problem is in the multiplying of the probabilities. I am not convinced that that is the proper step to take.

Sorry, that is how probabilities work.."

Probability can be extremely useful, but without a frame of reference, it can be completely meaningless.

Imagine I take a standard deck of cards, shuffle it thoroughly and then proceed to pull a series of cards. The odds that I pulled this series is astronomically low. Some might infer based on this probability that I lied and could never have produced that particular sequence.

I am taking the "bdelloid rotifers" from a story that Pictors posted earlier. 80 million years without sex? A simple explanation would have been both instructive AND amusing, but it is nowhere in that article, unless I missed it.

John, I don't know what article Pictors was alluding to. Here is blog describing an article where the authors hypothesize that the bdelloid rotifers have only reproduced asexually. The argument depends on your understanding of allele divergence. I don't know how simple that is.

Many microorganisms reproduce asexually, bacteria do so exclusively. That a sub sect of rotifers do so isn't a stretch.The vast majority of our cells also do so, though we as individuals certainly do not.

link

Reference is at bottom of link.

Another paper:

link

You need PubMed access for the full article.

In terms of Dark Matter, I recall something too that undermined the theory. Looking for it right now, but I want to say that the idea of there being a super-boson, which was used to support the Dark Matter theory, was undermined. This may not mean Dark Matter theories are necessarily wrong, but that a major pillar the theory rested on was undermined. I'll keep looking to see if I can find it…

Damon.

Only when you ASSUME that they are unrelated

John, then you are wasting your time talking to me. You should consult with the legal and law enforcement industry. You'd make millions overturning paternity DNA tests and blood DNA tests. You could rehabilitate OJ too.

Damon, I believe you may be conflating the theory of the existence of Dark Matter and the many theories of what Dark Matter is composed of. The first theory has a lot of observations to back it up.

arxiv.org/abs/1201.3942

Damon, probably this one? Doesn't undermine dark matter as such, but casts some serious question marks on supersymmetry theory as the explanation for it:

link

[Edit] Elsewhere the same results have been "spun" as signalling the end for dark matter, but at this stage that looks more like "we want a good headline" than "the nail's being hammered into the coffin of that theory"….

link

Here it is: the problem is that the lack of these "superparticles" puts theories of Supersymmetry in jeapoardy, and since some of the theories of Dark matter rely on Supersymmetry in their hypotheses, scientists now have to search out alternatives to explain Dark matter, or perhaps hypothesize that Dark matter does not, in fact, exist, and other explanations must be researched for the behavior of the universe on a Macro level:

link

Damon.

Dom, the discussion at the bottom of your second link is fascinating. I must admit that I understand only a little. Very little

geologists are often regarded as some of the poorest scientists

Because many Geologists are generalists. Even the specialists are generalists compared to the pure Physicists, Chemists, and even Astronomers. Geologists also often mingle professionally with Engineers, which is "not done" by many other scientific disciplines, and looked down on.

We also get to spend time outside, carry sharp implements on a routine basis, use explosives, and drive off-road vehicles for work. We have tans.

Only when you ASSUME that they are unrelated

John, then you are wasting your time talking to me.

John is correct for the general case of statistics. If two of the factors being looked at are related causally instead of being independently determined, the overall statistical results do change. Actuarial work is built around this sort of thing, for good and ill: this factor leads to that factor and both feed a third, and so on.

John may not be correct for genetics, but neither he, you, nor I are practicing geneticists. If a geneticist who has studied these factors and their relationships in detail says they are unrelated according to decades of research by many researchers, then the statistical math works as a straight-forward multiple.

If a geneticist makes such a statement, it comes at the end of a long process of determining which factors are in fact unrelated. Sure, evidence published tomorrow could change one or two of the factors on the list, but by now the list of unique and independently determined genetic factors is pretty well established, and forms the basis for the broad statement John used as his example.

All I want is an explanation, guys.

Oh come on John, you have a masters in Chemistry. Don't you recall classes in which the prof derives an equation right on the board and sometimes (mostly for me) how bloody fricking hard it was to comprehend?

You sound like you want to have that sort of understanding of these things. Sometimes they can be explained easily, sometimes not (like the classroom derivations). Think hard and you will remember.

At one point in my life, anything from any area outside of my engineering studies, was something I would sit down with paper, pencil, calculus, etc and start trying to figure out for myself.

Another problem is that lots of non-scientists have been using the term to promote something "scientifically proven" or "scientifically tested" is often a very dubious claim

Bravo Patrick on your whole post. The other thing I hate seeing is crap from "google-scientists" who have obviously googled something you mention and come back with stuff they've obliviously harvested somewhere and show complete lack of understanding (happened a lot here a few years ago over "discussions" on global warming). "Peer reviewed" is another piece of crap as well.

'scientifics' are sneering/mocking belief in 'invisible sky gods' yet won't even answer a question as to why they accept theories such as 'dark matter,' 'dark energy,' or 'strings.'

Only a few scientists (the proper word) do the mocking thing. They "accept" theories when they see the evidence, and often the evidence is the mathematics behind the claims. When you have that expertise (I used to, but it's long since leaked out of my brain – "differential equation" sounds more to me like auto mechanics now, I'm afraid) it's extraordinary what math proves.

The whole religion versus science is utterly ing ridiculous by pumped up dumbs says this Christian engineer and seems to perpetuated by ignorant dorks on both sides. Neither has anything to do with the other, except for uneducated (again on both sides) morons who want to feel like they have all answers. religion is one set of answers, science is an approach to understanding the amazing wonderful world around us.
--
Tim

These "facts" are just thrown at us and we are expected to accept them, because a guy in a white coat says so. Those are the clerical vestments of the 21st Century.

Actually I expect most scientists don't particularly care if anyone believes them -- they are only talking to other scientists. And science journalists just want you to look at the adds.

Thing with science is, when it comes to actually doing things in this world, it works a lot better than ignorance.

And if there is nothing that you (the generic reader, I am sure the OFM does not fit in this category) understand better than most people, but is too complex and subtle to expect absolutely everyone to understand it based on a one-paragraph explanation in a newspaper article .. then that is really a shame.

Oh come on John, you have a masters in Chemistry.

Err, no. Went to grad school, but too much wine women and song carried me off.
Make that beer, women and D&D.

Haven't touched a beaker since.

Don't you recall classes in which the prof derives an equation right on the board and sometimes (mostly for me) how bloody fricking hard it was to comprehend?

Now I will have nightmares.
I had a Thermodynamics professor derive an equation for an hour and a half with partial derivatives and all that smoke and mirrors (we had LONG classes at King's) and at the Ta!Da! moment, their was an unwanted minus sign.
Next class, instead of telling us where he goofed up ("I told you to take good notes!"), he repeated the whole damned thing. It came out right this time.

Like I said, I know how it's done. I simply would appreciate an explanation.
Like where the 80 million years came from.

Sorry if there was apparently a misunderstanding – by 'scientific' I was referring the followers of the religion of 'science' (who in this context are those accepting a theory just because someone in a white lab coat stated it). Some of these are indeed actual scientists. Most however are those who blindly accept these pronouncements as articles of 'faith' because they don't have enough knowledge of the subject and, to some extent, no wish to try.

Sorry Gypsycomet, most of the geologists I am acquainted with don't have tans or spend a lot of time outdoors – they work/worked in underground mines. And a lot of the engineers of my acquaintance only associate with geologists by necessity – not a hard enough discipline (on the other hand in my time as a mine surveyor I spent more time hanging out with the geologists).

And yes, Ditto, the mockers that I see most often are the
'scientifics' not scientists (perhaps because a lot of scientists don't hang out on TMP, NRO, or various gun boards). And I definitely agree with your final paragraph. Unfortunately, I have read in several places that there is a need in humans to 'believe.' For some this becomes Science</> – had a fellow recently over on one of the gun boards state that he wished to convert traditional believers to Science</> because it would lead to a better society.

On the other hand, this just led to another thought – 5000 years ago there were scientists who made celestial observations and derived theories of how the universe worked. Then they came down from their towers and told the people what the gods wanted. They also often hoarded the knowledge that they had gained because it gave them power and respect. But that was then…..

John may not be correct for genetics, but neither he, you, nor I are practicing geneticists. If a geneticist who has studied these factors and their relationships in detail says they are unrelated according to decades of research by many researchers, then the statistical math works as a straight-forward multiple.

I'm not a practicing geneticist. But I did take genetics and I did take immunology and remember doing these very calculations for major histocompatibility markers. These techniques are used everyday for determining transplant compatibility (and the degree of anti-rejection drugs needed) paternity testing and blood and sperm DNA matching.

Scientists KNOW things until they don't know it. Then they just move to theory 2.0

Global warming, beginning of life, nutrition, 9 planets, you name it. It's best to ignore any calls for action and let them changing their mind.

Like I said, I know how it's done. I simply would appreciate an explanation.
Like where the 80 million years came from.

John, this could be an example of a scientist saying, "Well these creatures could have been around for up to 80 million years ago", and the journalist only hearing the "80 million years" part.

I don't know, but I'll guess it was done in one of two ways. First Rotifers actually fossilize well. So there could be 80 million year old bdelloid rotifer fossils. There is a crustacean like creature called Darwinulidae that is also suspected of breeding asexually, and there are fossils of it 220 million years old.

Then there is genetic divergence. Changes in DNA of populations occurs at a steady rate, of about 1% per 2 1/2 million years. Comparing the % difference between the bdelloid genome to that of it's closest rotifer relative will give a good idea when they diverged.

Usually, the dates arrived by fossil finds and genetic divergence match well.

Like I said I don't know where the 80 million year number comes from. I do know that bdelloid Rotifers have been found trapped in amber. These have been dated to 40 million years old. Still a long time without sex.

"Peer reviewed" is another piece of crap as well.

Tim, could you elaborate on this statement? Certainly it is protection from the "argument from authority" logical fallacy, amongst other benefits.

Think Dr. William Shockley and his ideas of race and intelligence.
Think Dr. Kary Mullis and his ideas on AIDS denialism and astrology.

How about the endless self correction? What other intellectual activity has auto-correction as a central tenet?

Goragrad figured it out ! Science is flawed, let's just throw "On the Origin of Species" and the theory of Relativity on the bonfire.

I hope Goragrad also has figured out the new system to we will have to follow. Do we just make up random idea and make them fit whatever we care to explain ? Do we allow everyone to work out a theory and let the people vote democratically on the one that sounds best and make it into law ?

What has science ever given us ? Only stuff like the internet where people can disparage about it endlessly.

Apologies to Goragrad, I mean no disrespect, but by giving anecdotal evidence you only reinforce the fact that a lot of people are stupid, arrogant and/or misguided. It doesn't mean the system is wrong. Science may get a lot of things wrong, but it corrects itself when the evidence is making a dent in even the most respected theory. This leads us to a better understanding and no matter how much we hobble along the way or people try to abuse the system, it's still better than obscurantism or standing in the middle of an Incan city, telling the audience all this could only have been made by aliens, while standing in front of a half-finished monolith with the pounding and grinding stones used to fashion it still lying around in plain view …