I think the need for peer review could be said to demonstrate a lack of rational conviction most scientists actually have about their work. Of course one could also say it's only human.
Science, and indeed objectivity itself, is fundamentally subjective because it relies on the notion of a relatively finite observer. From this subjective belief all measured observation can take place. And from measurement science and objectivity proceed. Few scientists are sufficiently interested, in my experience, in objectivity to actually apply their rationale to their own inner world. If they did they would realise that all objectivity arises from an untested assumption - that this finite observer exists. They have no proof whatsoever for it. There is nothing in their experience of being alive which can verify it, at least nothing I have ever come across. But without it objectivity collapses and one is left floundering around in a non-dual mish-mash.
This is, imo, quite relevant to this thread because...there is an inherent tendency in most people to avoid confrontation with this deep subjective-objective divide. It scares the crap out of them. A powerful "conspiracy theory" throws people right there. It challenges some of the deepest beliefs they have about themselves and their world. It can shake them to the core. This does not mean that conspiracy theories are actually true. But it does explain why many people really struggle to realistically assess them. They demand extreme objectivity because the stakes are high. And, in many ways, I think they're right to.
Nick
Unfortunately, there is nothing constructive to come from a debate over different forms of qualia between intersecting and sometimes diverging viewpoints. That is essentially the heart of what people here are talking about when discussing subjectivity. 'Science' in and of itself is neither subjective nor objective, it is only a process. The process that is science (or, for your familiarity, the scientific method) aims to reduce the level of subjective observation by distributing the same consistent set of data across the purview of as many different subjective observations as reasonably possible, in order to make note of the consistent qualities of that data that remain the same. When qualities turn out not being consistent across separate observations, the methodology is not to change the interpretation but is to look at the hypothesis and examine whether it needs to be reformulated.
This is the precise disconnect between those who cling tenaciously to conspiracy theories and those who look at the same data and come to a different and usually less sinister and less complex conclusion. Conspiracy theories do, initially, work from a valid hypothesis according to the terms of scientific method. However, what conspiracy theories do not engage in is a re-examination of the root hypothesis when faced with conflicting and inconsistent data. Instead, conspiracy theories tend to adjust the criteria for testing so make allowances for the inconsistencies to be ignored while exaggerating evidence that could be construed as supporting of the original hypothesis. If this is done in the traditional scientific communities, the person engaging in such behavior risks their career, their credibility, and most likely their job. There are no such checks and balances in the conspiracy theory environment. When faced with opposing evidence, the conspiracy theorist either ignores the data or accuses the data of being manipulated by the perpetrators of the original hypothesis-- the very idea that the original hypothesis could be flawed does not even enter the realm of possibility to the conventional conspiracy theory, whereas scientific method requires the scientist to
always be prepared to go "back to the drawing board" when faced with conflicting data.
With regard to the Zeitgeist film (Part I), this poor behavior on the part of the 'researchers' for the film falls into the same category that conspiracy theorists reside, and not within the realm of historical or archaeological (scientific) reasearch. Since there does not exist at this point and time the ability to actually observe the events that happened 1000, 2000, 3000, or more years ago, the best way to determine the most likely scenario is to take what data can be collected from various sources of evidence-- writing, artifacts, remains, surviving architecture-- and try to reconstruct as much of what life may have been like during those times as possible, then come at that information with the hypothesis in question.
The reason the Zeitgeist documenters and a few other published 'researchers' have focused so highly on Egypt is because of the vast wealth of information that has been recovered from Egypt and is still in the process of being collected, documented, and catalogued. Understanding of the Egyptian written language is about 180 years old, and already we can determine that the Egyptian civilization as a whole were meticulous record keepers. While most archaeological work on ancient civilizations is done based on examination of artifacts first and only bits and pieces of written data, much of Egyptian information turned out being highly documented and, once we figured out how to translate the writing, explains much of the civilization in general. Even after having loads of artifacts and data damaged or destroyed over the centuries by conquering forces (from the Greeks and Romans all the way up to the Nazis), the wealth of archaeological data from Egypt outnumbers those of its neighbors by a large amount. Given also the more unstable nature of the bulk of the Mid-East for the last century compared to Egypt (which is more North African than Mid-Eastern), more Western researchers have been able to study artifacts and recorded information that still resides in Egypt, as well as the large number of artifacts that have been taken from the region for hundreds of years by conquering armies (France and Britain have huge collections, for instance). Egyptology is a much more popular archaeological 'hobby' because there many aspects of Egyptian civilization and culture that are, in relative terms, "new" to the fields of study because of the relatively recent (less than 200 years) discovery of the Rosetta Stone.
However, what gets less popular coverage when glancing over historical discovery is that the Mesopotamian and Indus River regions have a long and well-documented archaeological record as well, but the sources are not the same as nor are the discoveries as recent as those in Egypt, in most cases. Now, over the last 20-30 years and the discovery of the Nag Hammadi (often referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls), popular study of the Mid-Eastern / Mesopotamian region has gained somewhat more momentum, but still does not enjoy the same popularity as Egyptology. While study of ancient architectures (like the ziggurats) still take place in the Mesopotamian region, other artifact study is dispersed and much of the study of ancient literature takes place in Italy, with notable research performed in Lebanon, Iran, and when it wasn't entrenched in wars during the past fifty years (which sadly happened far too often), the university in Baghdad, Iraq. Still, even the likes of the Great Ziggurat of Ur doesn't compare in terms of tourist curiosity like the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt. Considering that, for the last 20 years at least, American researchers were just as likely to be
shot as they were to be welcomed in the Mesopotamian region, the focus when the world looked to the North African / Arabian Peninsula / Indus River region with regard to archaeology, the two most popular forms of research have been religious researchers-- usually for Christianity (and naturally Judaism since the formation of Israel)-- and Egyptologists.
This correlation of academic focus is the primary source for those who claim a straight, decisive connection between the religious practices of Egypt and the Jewish and Christian mythologies. Unfortunately, it is a case of attempting to paint correlation as causation, when more likely influences to the early Hebrews have significant records and histories available to study for those who honestly wish to examine the relationship all of these civilizations had with each other. Some of the civilizations that are ignored by these "correlation = causation" claims actually have direct hereditary and cultural connections to the Hebrew people (and thus the Jews of today), like the Sumerians (Abraham was from Ur, which is in Sumer) and the Canaanites (with whom the Hebrews of Moses' time shared the Promised Land). Jewish oral history even outright names kings like Nebudchanezzar (of Babylon) in at least partially historical context. Yet this wealth of information and direct lineage in language, culture, mythology, legend, government, and literature are often ignored or marginalized by these fringe theories that claim it
must have been Egypt or Jesus
must be a Jewish copy of Horus or Bacchus.
This is just an example of how the subjective nature behind the 'research' in Zeitgeist falls short of wider scientific study of the whole region within context. This is the difference between science and speculation, Nick, and why Zeitgeist falls squarely into the realm of wild (and grossly incorrect) speculation.
I appreciate it, and the same for you.