>>716051759Science is constantly pushing things, but without an educated background, it can be difficult to see or understand it. Scientists are researching if tunneling nanotubes could be used to destroy cancerous tumors. It’s some sci fi shit. The research is slow and methodical, but that’s what real science looks like. It’s not just “what if we injected him with soap? That might fix something. Let’s try it.”
Disciplined archeology/history will collect data and allow that to lead to conclusions. When there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that can only point to one single conclusion to the exclusion of all others, it becomes a viable theory. This is reviewed by other experts and is subject to scrutiny. If they can poke holes in your theory, then perhaps it’s not sound. If they can’t, then maybe you’ve got something. The goal isn’t for people to accept your claim. The goal is to figure out what is real.
The problem with this crackpot (and ancient aliens idiots) is that they start with a conclusion (possibly formed after perceiving a single data point), and then search for corroborating data. They either lack the education that could help them properly understand the context of any findings, or they conveniently ignore anything that doesn’t support their ideas. When experts poke holes in their theories, they whine about how they’re being ignored by the mainstream, but the problem is that they don’t have enough evidence to back up their wild claims.