Archaeologist Johan Normark fights back against cranks

[gwyl]

...therefore to the pseudo archaeologist this means it could exist and this means it does exist...

this is frequently the identifying aspect of a certain type of researcher. in the first instance, based on data, a proposal is put forward, in the second instance the hypothesis is fact, upon which one can build an argument, with further hypotheses being based on preceding 'facts', which had only pages (or paragraphs) previously been expounded as a hypothesis. you even get it in history: When China Discovered the World by Gavin Menzie is the last book like this i read

i am currently looking forward to reading Mr Hancock's Talisman for pretty much the same reason

however, in both cases the whatever truth is out there, the speculated confabulation is preferred over the infinitely more prosaic reality. however, it doesn't stop people collaring me on site, asking 'what about the pyramids, eh?' etc.

yes, quintaine, there have been out-there theories which have come inside the fields of academic discourse, such as Thom's archaeoastronomy, although as Clive Ruggles points out "...[A] field with academic work of high quality at one end but uncontrolled speculation bordering on lunacy at the other." - such are the exception, precisely because while we build hypotheses, we always, as has been said so many times before here,we return to the data, and cross-check against data, and only accept the hypothesis as a best fit, a form, if you will, of Popper's falsification. That is the fundamental difference. As Jack (i think) pointed out, we are writing, expecting to be shot down, rather than expecting to change the world...

or maybe that's just me...