I again submit that we are dealing with things we don’t understand here, mysteries we can not fully explain. I do try to live by Ockham’s razor and the null hypothesis, and must concede the world is probably not full of things such as sophisticated 12,000 year old human civilizations. But still, there are mysteries. It is of course a matter of interpretation, but what are those weathering marks on the Sphinx? Perhaps they are combinations of ground water, wind and sand, but…there is some reasonable chance that it was centuries of rain when the climate was much wetter. Mind you still slim, but Ockham only speaks to not assuming the existence of more things than are logically necessary. When it comes to my example of the Sphinx, I struggle with deciding what evidence is logical and necessary. In the social sciences, we are happy if we can be at 1% certainty in rejecting that something is not due to chance. Okay, I find the odds of 12,000 year old fully developed Atlantian civilizations extremely remote. But there are other mysteries such as the Sphinx, or perhaps something more mundane such as agriculture existing prior to 9,000 BC or so (ironically it is C-14 dating that dates this).
I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Hancock makes, but neither do I agree with all I read in the Tao. I would hope that anyone that reads books such as Fingerprints will similarly make their own conclusions. I also appreciate the universe includes mysteries, and believe that in an infinite universe anything is possible. So a series of digs at an archeological site is still a random sample. No matter how representative, you could be digging 5 feet away from the next Rosetta stone. In the majority of cases, I accept the empirical evidence, assume appropriate error, and drive on. The mysteries here are perhaps more than just random error and mean one should perhaps keep digging, which is what Mr. Hancock is doing.