Within the past centries, there has been an ongoing debate between supporters of a Lost Coninent, mainly on whether it existed or not. Through popular arguments it will be proven that Atlantis
A strong thesis is needed in the introduction. WHy is Atlantis
or a Lost world popular even though it has been proven to never exist. Discuss Plato, Ignatius Donnelly and their connection the belief of a lost continent while adhearing the guidelines below. Also discuss the charlatan Graham Hancock and how he's making money off the idea
The analysis needs to be a clear, thoughtful, logical, and above all SCIENTIFIC analysis of the material using a critical eye to detect flaws in the fantastic arguments. What does scientific inquiry say about the PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC claim? Why do people choose to believe questionable claims about the past? Is the case one of intentional hoax, and if so what was the motive? Why should people have known that an assertion was questionable, or perhaps outright false?
Since it needs to be argued from the point of view of the skeptical, critical, SCIENTIFIC observer, the position should be supported by logical evidence, or at least logical alternative explanation and hypothesis. It is not enough to say that something is "clearly a hoax" or to say that "science tells us that this is untrue".. It must demonstrate that you understand the process of scientific inquiry and reasoning, and lest you fall into the same trap as pseudoscientists, evidence must be provided to support the claim. Otherwise, the opinion is worth no more than those making the original claim.
The paper must be in the style of archaeological research papers. The discipline of archaeology follows the convention of the journal American Antiquity for citation of references and bibliographic style.
These can be used while writing the paper:
Sagan Tools: Baloney kit tools for skeptical thinking.
Skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand a reasoned argument and – especially- important- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether the premise is true.
• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view
• Arguments from authority carry little weight – “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts
• Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypothesis,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a station in the pursuit if knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. IF you don’t, others will.
• Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypothesis. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging
• If there’s a chain of arguments, every link in the chain must work (including the premise)- not just most of them.
• Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule of thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data quality well to choose the simpler.
• Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are un-testable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle- an electron, say- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea of incapable to disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiment and see if they get the same result.
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]
Gateway to Atlantis: The Search for the Source of a Lost Civilization. Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1st Edition, New York
Erlingsson Ulf and Wibjorn Karlen.
Atlantis from a Geographer's Perspective. Lindorm Publishing, Oslo.
Flem-Ath, Rand and Colin Wilson.
The Atlantis Blueprint: Unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of a Long-Lost Civilization. Delta, Chicago.
Forsyth, Phyllis Y.
1980 Atlantis: The Making of Myth. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilizations. Three Rivers Press, New York.
Wonders of the Sea (Wonders of Nature: Natural Phenomena in Science and Myth). Libraries Unlimited, Ithaca.
Atlantis: Myth or Reality. Penguin, New York.
The Atlantis Encyclopedia. New Page Books, San Francisco.
The Destruction of Atlantis: Compelling Evidence of the Sudden Fall of the Legendary Civilization. Bear and Company, Ann Arbor, MI. =
Pellegrino, Charles R.
Unearthing Atlantis: An Archaeological Odyssey to the Fabled Lost Civilization. Avon, New York.