Paradigm The Paradigm

The Paradigm: To challenge, or not to challenge? In modern days, scientific discourse between ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ scientists has raised questions about what they should or shouldn 't give proper attention and further study. One example of this, is the orthodox narrative of modern human history shared by geologists and archaeologists around the world, which tells us that the first technologically advanced human civilizations started in Mesopotamia around 3,000-5,000 BC. However, a series of evidence brought forth by two science skeptics and scientists suggest that the current narrative of our history could be inaccurate. They argue that it’s possible that a lost, technologically advanced ancient civilization mapped and explored the globe with great accuracy millennia before orthodox human history tells. From this debate arises a question: Should scientists focus exclusively on driving the current paradigm to its limits and not bother challenging it, even if other theories and scientific evidence defy the paradigm? Professor Charles H. Hapgood, most known for his book The Earth 's Shifting Crust: A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science and Graham

Therefore, it’s difficult to start a conversation between geologists, archaeologists and historians. It’s vital to narrow the research prospects in these fields but also I think there needs to be more scientific discourse between different fields that affect each other in one way or another. The human historical paradigm is grounded in the research of archaeology. However, Hancock debates that the field of geology has more to teach humans about our history than we think. He debates that around 15,000 to 8,000 BC, during the last ice age, an unprecedented world-wide cataclysm was overlooked that led to the extinction of countless species, including the megafauna (Hancock