There are whole websites out there devoted to debunking and ridiculing "Ancient Aliens", episode by episode; and a moderately-trained person can certainly spot how topic-to-topic jumps present here make no sense, and - in particular - how far-reaching conclusions are drawn from speculations based on fragmentary evidence, in full non-compliance with Occam's Razor.
Surely all that's enough to turn off any sane or sensible viewer once and for all?
While not entirely sure if I (still) fit into either of the above categories, I would suggest that "Ancient Aliens" is surprisingly virtuous, as well as being quite clearly entertaining. After you've watched a few episodes, you may well find that the most regular of the "talking heads" (David Childress, George Tsoukalos and co.) become a kind of reassuring and even likeable presence. You somehow miss then when they are not on screen, for whatever reason. And - while not all (or even not much) of the erudition present makes too much sense, the show certainly does have erudition on offer. Since it's goal is to "talk up" every idea, there is surprisingly little talking down to the audience, and the relentless optimism (only encouraged by the upper-case narration) is somehow infectious.
Furthermore, as you watch these often very good-looking episodes there is NO CHANCE that you will emerge without wanting to read more, or pay a visit to a museum to see an exhibit, or even travel to another country. In my case I have Sardinia's "Well of Santa Cristina" on my "to see" list, Newgrange in Ireland and so on.
Surely a series that has that kind of effect can't be all bad?
Now there is a key qualification here. I am an adult with a "conventional" education plus extensive scientific training, so I watch the programmes contrasting conventional wisdom with what is presented. I know - on the whole - what the conventional wisdom is. As a matter of fact, I have considerable interest in exobiology, and so contrast anything I see on this show with my core view that life beyond Earth is an extremely unlikely and chancey phenomenon. Yet I find myself setting that well-argued and justified approach against AA and looking for ways to reconcile two entirely opposing views!
Frankly, I feel it does me no harm, and actually quite a bit of good. Thinking outside the box must never be rejected - not ever!
Interestingly, a certain number of (more or less) conventional-wisdom scientists also make occasional appearances on the show. But this is probably not a place in which kids should make their first contact with scientific ideas - even though it might be argued that they would receive a refreshingly large dose of open-mindedness (albeit fantastic) from it were they to do so!
And here we reach a further nub of the problem - do we have any evidence that mainstream science rejects or quarantines data that do not fit its stories and patterns? Do scientists really go wherever the facts take them, even after years of pursuing one main line of research? Is it clear that science already has all the answers, and that the world is known and relatively predictable? Any reasonable person - any person with a reasonable knowledge of history (and science) - would have to suggest that the answer to the first question is "yes", while the answers to the second and third are "noes". Furthermore, there are indeed (numerous) cases of science's worldview having ultimately to change dramatically (with something resembling a rupture or bout of diarrhoea) to accommodate new findings - not least in the case of our expectations for pretty much every single planet and moon in the Solar System!
If 998 ideas in every 1000 broached in "Ancient Aliens" are largely or entirely exaggerated, that still may leave 2 ideas that have real content and may one day change the way we see things markedly.
But a further question might be if powers in our world beyond science have an interest or determination to keep certain ideas out of the reach of the public, even if they are true and fully justified scientifically. While the jury must inevitably be out on that one, there would seem once again to be enough hinted evidence to suggest that the answer to this question is another "yes". As long as people in authority may indeed be hiding at least some of the truth from us, who can be surprised that series like "Ancient Aliens" flourish? A minimum of open-mindedness about what our world is really like (as opposed to what it seems to be like) looks justified, and ultimately, the world offered by "Ancient Aliens" is an enticing and attractive one (which at one at the same time means the series's biggest plus and biggest minus).
In turn, if the core argument of those who dedicate themselves to debunking AA is that the real world must, we are afraid, be more boring and familiar, more random and trivial, more technical and less inspirational, than the one on offer in this series; then that's a little sad - and it may by the way point to a real problem that science faces in comparison with other human endeavours.
14 out of 25 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
