Is Hapgood's Pseudoscience or Failed Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the hypothesis proposed by Hapgood, which suggests a slip of the Earth's crust to explain various anomalies such as asymmetrical climate zones and extinctions in the past. Despite being considered pseudoscience, Hapgood's hypothesis was based on observations and followed a scientific method. However, it was ultimately proven to be incorrect. The conversation also mentions the debate around the authenticity of the dialogue between Hapgood and Einstein, and the importance of drawing a line when evidence becomes too physically difficult to explain. The conversation concludes with a discussion on the lessons that can be learned from this hypothesis and the need for both amateurs and professionals to be cautious in their interpretations of evidence.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
I perfectly understand the reason for locking this thread; pseudoscience.

Hapgood proposed a slip of the Earth crust to explain assymetric climate zones in the pleistocene, extinctions and an apparent ice free West Antarctica. Such a scenario is extremely odd, but is it really pseudoscience or merely a failed hypothesis?

Hapgood who has a PhD in history btw, made observations and formulated a hypothesis and found more evidence to support it. The hypothesis seemed counter intuitive and was physically difficult to explain but at least he followed kind of a scientific method which ultimately lead to failure. No more than that. Does that make him a quack? Hapgood's only 'failure' to science may have been that he could not face that failure. But that is very human, who is able to give up his pet idea witout a fight? Even Richard Muller still believes in his brown dwarf Nemesis

But with the closing of the thread it became impossible to discus these matters further and show the eager readers what has happened in the past and what kind of lesson can be learned from that. It's also interesting to see if the dialogue between Einstein and Hapgood was faked as has been proposed. I'm convinced that it was real. After all, the book had the foreword of Einstein in it. Hard to fake that.

But with the "earth crust displacement" hypothesis thoroughly falsified (although the debunkers like Mewhinney and Burns made several errors themselfs) , that did not take away the evidence. And the highly contradictory evidence of impossible assymetric climate zones is getting stronger by the day.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Andre said:
(snip)... what kind of lesson can be learned from that. (snip)

Amateurs should stay out? Nah, don't like that. Pros (Einstein) can wander so far around the bend it's impossible to believe? Nah, don't like that one, either.

How about, "... physically difficult to explain ...," being the point where amateurs and pros both need to "draw the line," rather than shovelling evidence into great steaming heaps and asking, "What else could it be but UFOs, AGHW, fill in the blank with your favorite 'physically difficult' absurdity?"
 

1. What is Hapgood's hypothesis?

Hapgood's hypothesis, also known as "Earth crustal displacement theory", proposes that the Earth's crust has shifted multiple times in the past, causing continents to move and leading to major geological events such as the Great Flood.

2. Is Hapgood's hypothesis considered a pseudoscience?

There is much debate among scientists about Hapgood's hypothesis. Some argue that it is a pseudoscience because it lacks sufficient evidence and is not supported by mainstream geologists. Others argue that it is a legitimate scientific theory that has yet to be proven.

3. What evidence does Hapgood's hypothesis have?

Hapgood's hypothesis is based on geological and archaeological evidence, such as similarities between ancient maps and modern maps, and geological formations that suggest large-scale crustal movement. However, many scientists argue that this evidence is inconclusive and does not support the theory.

4. Has Hapgood's hypothesis been tested?

Hapgood's hypothesis has not been widely tested or accepted by the scientific community. Some studies have attempted to test the theory using computer simulations, but the results have been inconclusive and not widely accepted.

5. What is the current scientific consensus on Hapgood's hypothesis?

The majority of mainstream scientists do not consider Hapgood's hypothesis to be a valid scientific theory. While it has sparked interesting discussions and research, it has not been widely accepted due to the lack of conclusive evidence and its departure from established scientific principles.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
13K
Back
Top