One thing readers of the Mathisen Corollary should realize is that the author does not have expertise in every area of study related to ancient civilization, astronomy, geology, mythology, or anything else.
It is impossible for anyone to be an expert in everything, and every author necessarily comes from a unique background that will have areas of relative strength and weakness based on areas of academic specialization, life and work experience, places that author has lived and visited so far, and the work of other authors and researchers where that author has focused most.
Similarly, every individual comes with a certain set of biases related to beliefs and convictions acquired through life experience, upbringing, education, personality and disposition, religious views, and other aspects of being human.
Since no human is perfect, the work of every human author you encounter will necessarily have these gaps and biases. On the other hand, every individual also has unique strengths, skills, and life experiences that no one else has, and therefore brings something to the conversation that no one else can bring.
It is important to keep these obvious facts in mind when it comes to the quest for the truth about mankind's ancient past and the history of the planet. One author will -- by disposition, training and experience -- be able to throw light on one aspect of the mystery in a way that another author cannot, while the second author can likewise uncover threads of the tapestry that the first author could not see.
Rather than getting frustrated at any one contributor's personal gaps and biases, we should realize that everyone has a unique perspective to bring to the conversation, and that the more perspectives that are brought to bear on the problem, the more opportunity we all will have to discover the real solution to the mystery.
In this case, perhaps, the Scooby Doo analogy might actually be better than the Sherlock Holmes analogy, in that the gang of teenagers each had their own strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the solution of the mystery, and it was usually the pair with the biggest biases (mainly a bias towards avoiding trouble and finding food) that ended up inadvertently uncovering the answer.
While the standard set by the polymath Sherlock Holmes is certainly worth striving to emulate, in reality the better way to bring deep expertise spanning many disciplines to bear on the question of mankind's ancient past is to inspire more people to enter the conversation. This is what I attempted to convey in the final sentence of my introduction to the Mathisen Corollary, where I wrote:
"While no human book has all the answers, and all will contain some mistakes, it is hoped that the examination which follows will stimulate more detectives to examine the fascinating case of man's ancient past."
This, dear reader, means you. As Victor Laszlo says to Rick (two characters who each had their own strengths and weaknesses, gaps and biases) in the classic screenplay Casablanca, "Welcome back to the fight: this time I know our side will win."
It is impossible for anyone to be an expert in everything, and every author necessarily comes from a unique background that will have areas of relative strength and weakness based on areas of academic specialization, life and work experience, places that author has lived and visited so far, and the work of other authors and researchers where that author has focused most.
Similarly, every individual comes with a certain set of biases related to beliefs and convictions acquired through life experience, upbringing, education, personality and disposition, religious views, and other aspects of being human.
Since no human is perfect, the work of every human author you encounter will necessarily have these gaps and biases. On the other hand, every individual also has unique strengths, skills, and life experiences that no one else has, and therefore brings something to the conversation that no one else can bring.
It is important to keep these obvious facts in mind when it comes to the quest for the truth about mankind's ancient past and the history of the planet. One author will -- by disposition, training and experience -- be able to throw light on one aspect of the mystery in a way that another author cannot, while the second author can likewise uncover threads of the tapestry that the first author could not see.
Rather than getting frustrated at any one contributor's personal gaps and biases, we should realize that everyone has a unique perspective to bring to the conversation, and that the more perspectives that are brought to bear on the problem, the more opportunity we all will have to discover the real solution to the mystery.
In this case, perhaps, the Scooby Doo analogy might actually be better than the Sherlock Holmes analogy, in that the gang of teenagers each had their own strengths and weaknesses that contributed to the solution of the mystery, and it was usually the pair with the biggest biases (mainly a bias towards avoiding trouble and finding food) that ended up inadvertently uncovering the answer.
While the standard set by the polymath Sherlock Holmes is certainly worth striving to emulate, in reality the better way to bring deep expertise spanning many disciplines to bear on the question of mankind's ancient past is to inspire more people to enter the conversation. This is what I attempted to convey in the final sentence of my introduction to the Mathisen Corollary, where I wrote:
"While no human book has all the answers, and all will contain some mistakes, it is hoped that the examination which follows will stimulate more detectives to examine the fascinating case of man's ancient past."
This, dear reader, means you. As Victor Laszlo says to Rick (two characters who each had their own strengths and weaknesses, gaps and biases) in the classic screenplay Casablanca, "Welcome back to the fight: this time I know our side will win."
