>CP: A good editor is worth their weight in gold ... but peer review is of dubious value. I think that was a major point that Graham Hancock was trying to make in his paper. As an example, I was watching a Nova special last night about Ray Davis who conducted an experiment to measure neutrinos and then developed a theory around it. His peers poo-pooed the whole thing. It took 40 years (in the proverbial wilderness) before the man was finally vindicated and given a Nobel Prize.
-M: Maybe the problem here is not an *innate* problem with peer-review, but the problem was the *wrong kind* of peer-review.
These peers may have been presumptuous-entrenchment-monkeys. These types should be given a banana, and sent off to work as technicians, not defenders of the evolution of a field.
I am proposing a system a system that would NOT defend a *worldview*, but would defend *productive debate*.
>CP: It is probably a greater service to give new ideas a chance to grow and be widely considered than it is to make value judgments and rank them against others. We can't always know which ideas are true or truer right away.
-M: My idea isn't to rank ideas, it is to rank those that are proposing the ideas. If the initial pool of rankers/rankees was controversial authors and their reviewers, don't you think that they would think considerably differently than their uptight acedemic counterparts? I think that diversity of opinion would be encouraged.
>CP: Breakthroughs often come when we combine disparate elements. The spark for me was generated by the friction between Ahmed Osman and William Theaux, a 3rd generation Freudian Psychoanalyst with an interest in Greek mythology and Akhenaten/Oedipus (Velikovsky being something of a 2nd Generation Freudian). By combining their very different perspectives a explosion of insight occurred.
-M: Yes, and those selected by my system will probably be well aware of the powers of synthesis.
>CP: Of course the ability to take on the entire gamut of ancient history would have been possible without so many excellent books of mainstream archaeology, mythology, and biblical studies that have been published in the past ten years. This essentially made the wealth of specialized disciplines available to a broadly educated person like myself. Other independent researchers have had an impact as well and in strange ways. For example, when I first started looking at the Book of Genesis as both Mesopotamian and Egyptian history, I came across a book called The Moses Mystery by Gary Greenberg. I was able to use almost nothing from that book directly in building my own model, but just the process of reading it opened up my mind and made me able to make new connections between Genesis and archaeology.
-M: OK, and I think that those chosen by my system would respect this.
>CP: To answer your other question from the previous post, I have made a very limited study of a possible link of Abraham to India. If you use the search utility (with key words such as Abraham or Brahma or Melchizedek) of the forum it should come up.
-M: OK, and there is a guy named Gene Matlock who I don't entirely agree with, but I did get some ideas from him.
>CP: I'm not familiar with the study you cited linking Sumerian and Indian king-lists.
-M: Waddell says:
"Sargon = Kuni Sha-Kuni or Sagara
Manis Tissu = Asa-Manja, Manasyu
Naram-Anenzu (or Sin) = Anjana, Ansu-mat or Karamba
Shar-Gani Shar-Ri = Kunti-jit Khatwanga Dilipa
or Dilipa [...]"
This list isn't complete. He actually links over 90% of the Kings. Waddell has been ignored, probably because of his political incorrectness.(Peer-review issue.)
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.