Special Note: At the risk of belabouring the extremely obvious, this page is a work in progress, with quite a distance to go before it sleeps. All of these Attributions are from our perspective. We are not putting them forward as objective fact. We welcome all feedback, though we do not guarantee to process it other than for ascertainable accuracy and usefulness. Thanks.

Definitions, Premisses, and Info in Trinculo Font

Scientists / scientists, Theorizing, and Documentation

Scientists and scientists

Once when we were talking a friend referred to a famous research Scientist, as a "Capital S Scientist". What a delightful and effective meme! Immediately and instinctively she let me know that she considered that person to be what also might be called a "Real Scientist", or one who does research to discover Truths to whatever extent possible, without a preconceived idea of what those Truths should be, and no commitment to an "investment in maintaining the status quo". (Isn't that the essence of the "Scientific Method"?) So I try to use it a lot, and promote its use. "Lowercase s scientists" conversely being those who do knee jerk hostile reactions any time someone dares to even theorize outside the current "mainstream" views; willing to do anything at all to discredit the renegade. This behaviour would be easy to ignore, if the "lowercase s scientists" weren't in control of most educational institutions, corporate research facilities, and the media. This is somewhat less an issue within the disciplines of Physics, since the wannabe maintainers of the status quo there have been heavily sedated since the early 1900s, and/or otherwise put out of their potenial misery. However, these torch and burn tactics against anyone who leans toward actually following the "Capital S Scientist" approach in other fields, like Anthropology, Archeology, Sociology, remains unabated.

Providing examples of some of the instances which we are referencing here may be (so to speak) a little "Witch Hunt gone Wrong", [in the sense, of . . . we'll you've caught me, now what?] Regardless a review of the treatment of Margaret Alice Murray, Marija Gimbutas,

Theorizing and Hypothesizing

One does wonder at the degree of hostility which any theory or hypothesis, which strays even a little outside the existing accepted dogmas in each field, rouses in the mainstream and establishment adherents of that field. Especially as it seems that within the context of any application of the scientific method to any arena of study, that the more theories and hypothesises that are put forward, the more likely we are to arrive at some meaningful result.

Documentation and/or Truth

In a textbook example of mixing of the levels, one of the battle cries always seems to be: "So and So did not supply adequate documentation, of their theories". As if the only theories that should be put forward are those which are concretely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. This does seem a classic instance of "Glass house residents, throwing stones", in particular considering the degree of total conjecture involved in many of the doctrinaire views of how civilization evolved on this planet, both those which have actually been proven false, and the ones which are still accepted in the establishment views.