Discovery vs. Interpretation
Hard Science vs. Soft Science
[First to say, I no longer post UBtheNEWS emails in threads on facebook or UBRON or any other UB related forums. When I start a thread, I feel a social obligation to respond to people, if they comment on the post. But I can no longer manage the time commitment associated with feeling that way. Sorry. The upside is that these emails are not private; in fact, they get posted on the UBannotated website. You not only have permission, you also are encouraged to share this material in whole or in part wherever you like. Thanks for considering the opportunity to share.]
When things were invented like penicillin or the atomic bomb, people did not wonder how they should interpret such discoveries. They went directly to thoughts about how to use the discovery. The fact that reasonable minds differ in their interpretations about the social implications about the use of atomic bombs does not mean that reasonable minds differ about what an atomic bomb does.
In the hard sciences, if someone gets on the radar by producing valid work outside the mainstream, one of three things tends to happen. Their work may end up becoming incorporated into mainstream scientific thought. Or they may get professionally undermined, have their contributions underappreciated historically, and generally receive far less than what their contributions would otherwise deserved, as with Nikola Tesla. Or their work may go almost completely unrecognized in society because their contributions and personal integrity got unfairly attacked and undermined, as with Joseph Newman.
The soft sciences operate by different standards and life in the soft sciences tends to be much easier on the scientists because of this.
Naturally, I was curious about the Netflix series related to Gobekli Tepe. In that fictional drama, a talk was given in which reference was made to a reputable archaeologist, who was famous for saying, “It is not the discovery, it’s the interpretation that is important!”
In the soft sciences, such a statement (hopefully) reflects a healthy self-awareness about the limitations of one’s profession. Archaeologists and anthropologists know they are not a part of the hard science community, notwithstanding that hard science sometimes gets used on artifacts for analytical purposes. They know that their work is highly interpretive compared to the hard sciences.
And this is why someone like Zecharia Sitchin could publish based on questionable research and highly creative theories and still sell lots of books, become well-known, and make the academics jealous. This is why the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens programming can make an industry out of the issue. The celebrated Ancient Aliens personalities are free to emphatically assert their radically under supported theories (relative to the standards of the hard sciences) and people just love it.
The looser standards of the soft sciences leaves lots of room for speculation and creative interpretation, which makes the non professional feel free to do the same thing. Everyone gets to participate a bit more in the soft sciences with their lay opinions. That’s just part of the fun.
It only stops being fun when someone is overly agenda driven. This is why I am known for underplaying the conclusions of UBtheNEWS reports. This is accomplished through making surface level statements like, “. . . lends support to The Urantia Book’s depiction of . . .” Overstating one’s position in the context of religious outreach is a real big turn off for very good reasons.
(In contrast, we might want to consider, that plenty of people would love to make a living from the creative interpretations of highly under-supported fact patterns. That is fun and easy work, if you can get it. Sitchin and the Ancient Aliens cast get away with what they do because people envy them, respect that they are trying to make a living, and (at least to some degree, I should hope) understand that the overstatements are done a bit with a wink and nod because everyone knows that they not doing hard science and are not truly pretending to be doing hard science, either!)
All that being said, allow me to introduce you two new additions to UBtheNEWS reports and research pages:
1) Much thanks goes to Luis Marco for sending me a link to some UC Davis genetics research. This lends support to Urantia Book teachings about when the Sangik race mutated from the Neanderthal stock, as well as support for when the Neanderthals got started. This research is now available on the Double Dual Origins of Modern Man and pre-Modern Man Research Page.
2) The Ancient Scientific Teachings and Spiritual Practices section of the Gobekli Tepe Report has been rewritten and includes a new image (not the one seen here). The one shown here shows you the symbol that I interpreted in the rewrite of this section. The section above this has been revised a bit, also.