Men (and consequently male scientists) have often made large mistakes based on assumptions because they are inherently biased, arrogant about their own intellect, and yet ignorant of the things they don't know.
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson's character 'Gin Rummy' from Pulp Fiction:
"Well, what I'm saying is that there are known knowns and that there are known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know."
And therein lies the problem with certain branches of science, wherein there are too many unknowns and the scientists involved are sometimes just guessing based upon their personal biases.
Take for example Egyptian Archaeology.
We don't know a lot about the ancient Egyptians. Ergo, there is a lot of unknowns, and worse, there are also unknown unknowns.
Thus when archaeologists assert something, I have a tendency to disbelieve whatever they are saying because I have frequently noticed that archaeologists say stuff that is only supported by their biased viewpoint and a lack of evidence.
Let's take for example the following...
A regular person (someone not versed in the history of physics) would probably just look at the above images and think "Hmm. Okay. The Egyptians must have figured out to make a light bulb. That's bizarre and yet interesting."
Except it is NOT a light bulb.
It is something far more significant than merely creating light.
What you are looking at is something similar to a Cathode-ray tube or a Crooke's tube, which were used by early physicists to prove the existence of electrons and sub-atomic particles.
So definitely NOT a light bulb...
But something far more important.
Let me explain...
The Crookes tube (also called the Crookes–Hittorf tube) dates back to early electrical discharge experiments using a partial vacuum, and was invented by English physicist William Crookes, Johann Hittorf and others around 1869-1875, in which cathode rays, streams of electrons, were discovered.
Ferdinand Braun developed the first cathode-ray oscilloscope in 1897, a sort of precursor to the television set.
The CRT became the cornerstone in developing a fully electronic television by 1927.
America's first nuclear explosion occurred on July 16, 1945.
So it only took 70 years to go from discovering sub-atomic particles to splitting the atom using nuclear fission.
The "Tinfoil Hat / Ancient Alien" people out there would like you to believe that Ancient Egyptians had much greater technology than we care to admit, while the stodgy "I wouldn't stake my reputation on it" scientific crowd would never dare to even talk about such things.
Both groups are talking from a position of ignorance, and also arrogance.
They don't know, and therefore they make assumptions. And they base those assumptions on their biases and whatever side of the railroad tracks they've decided to setup camp on. It is basically tribalism.
"I am right because I say am I right, even if you have evidence to the contrary."
The people claiming such Egyptian devices are light bulbs from aliens are the true morons, because they are assuming that Ancient Egyptian scientists couldn't just invent these things on their own. Meanwhile the Egyptologists denying the existence of such devices or refusing to talk about them for fear of damaging their reputations are just as bad, because shunning the pursuit of knowledge or trying to slam the door on the investigation of such devices means they are choosing to willfully ignore historical evidence.
There needs to be an open space in the middle, where people can freely discuss things on a purely scientific basis (without any mention of either crackpot alien theories or damaging reputations).
Which leads me to the idea that perhaps such ideas should be discussed anonymously, so that scientists who are worried about their reputations can just do so anonymously without fear of losing their job or damaging their reputation because they supported a theory that Egyptians may have been a lot smarter than what we give them credit.
The Egyptians did manage to build the pyramids, one of the few man made structures easily visible from space, using rocks so big that modern scientists still don't know how to lift them or cut them with such precision. Do you know of a machine that can lift a 200 tonne rock?
That is the problem. We are still just ignorant.
And every time we ignore that the Ancient Egyptians were more technological advanced than we give them credit for indicates that our arrogance on the subject needs to be corrected.
...
Here's some genetic science for you to think about...
Almost every redheaded person in Ireland can trace their genetics back to Queen Scotia, who according to Irish legend was the first queen of Ireland and Scotland (hence the name), having conquered the region from the tribes who used to live there.
But where did Queen Scotia come from? According to legend, Queen Scotia came from Egypt. She was the daughter of a pharaoh. She brought to Ireland with her the Stone of Scone (upon which Kings and Queens would later be coronated), a stone which scientists have since determined is made of a type of rock not native to the British Isles, but matches the types of rocks found in Egypt.
Now naysayers of the stories will no doubt tell you that there is no way Queen Scotia really was the daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh. She couldn't possibly be. Right?
But then scientists checked the DNA of various Egyptian mummies with red hair and made some startling discoveries... 70% of the redheaded people in the British Isles, mostly in Ireland and Scotland, were direct descendants from Egyptian pharaohs.
So if you're Irish or Scottish and have red hair and just learning this now, congratulations! You're descended from Egyptian royalty!
Honestly a lot of people on the British Isles apparently are... So you're not alone. There's a whole lot of you...
But this just goes to prove several things.
#1. We should never ignore the possibility that ancient myths and legends might actually be based on true events.
#2. When in doubt find a way to scientifically check to see if it is true. Checking the DNA is a pretty accurate way of confirming something.
#3. We cannot just assume things must be true or false based on lack of evidence. We need to find evidence that definitively proves something is true or false. Otherwise we are just dealing with unknown unknowns.
Food for thought!
