Critical Thinking Exercise

A friend sent me a link to a dubious film about 'alternative chronology' not long ago. I was in a skeptical mood and so duly took to task this dodgy theory... Here's my rebuttal:

Crikey, but that was weird! Thanks for the link; it's proved quite a useful exercise! :) Here are my thoughts...
After just reading that short blurb and a bit of research, little red flags were going up all around my brain! Here's a few of ‘em:

1. For a start this is a MATHEMETICIAN who has written a book on HISTORY. This is a variation on the 'Argument from authority'. (i.e.; authority isn't always right) Just because you're clever at maths doesn't mean you're clever at history.

2. Celebrity endorsements! Gary Kasparov (the genius chess player) also endorses this theory, therefore it must be true! Because, after all, being a well known chess champion automatically qualifies you in the field of history and makes your lone opinion way more valid than several hundred years of dedicated research by thousands of professional historians! I’m afraid it’s another massive ‘Argument from authority’! (‘Argument from celebrity endorsement’ perhaps?)

3. You can publish a book on anything. I could publish a book proving that the world is made of pink jelly if I wanted and believed it. Books aren't peer reviewed, and thus aren't picked over by experts and corrected. If Fomenko had a serious hypothesis, peer review would have been the proper and more accurate route to go down. The fact that he seems to have avoided peer review seems to say that he knows it would be shown as dodgy and never published. Creationists, paranormal supporters use this strategy a lot and it's a hallmark of a pseudoscience.

4. From the link you sent me, 2nd para: 'He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton' Ah the old 'maverick-going-against-the establishment' fallacy! When people start to bandy around comparisons to people like Newton, or Copernicus (the guy who was imprisoned for saying the earth went around the sun, not vice versa) falsely gives the impression that they have a paradigm shattering theory. Whilst it's true there occasionally is a maverick that goes against the flow and is proven right (these guys did, they did the research and let the evidence speak for itself)
More often than not cries of 'Remember *insert-name-of-outspoken-scientist-here*! Everyone thought he was mad, but he was right!' are a sign of sensationalism, designed to invoke sympathy for the idea and make the reader feel intelligent that they know the ‘real’ truth before everyone else, rather like a…

5. …Conspiracy theory! Conspiracy theories are often posed as the ‘truth’ and ‘earth shattering’ and more often than not ‘suppressed’ by the mainstream because it would shake up the majority view a little too much. More often than not they aren’t suppressed by established experts; they’re exposed as the pile of poo or dodgy research it actually is. But if you really believe something hard enough and someone says it’s rubbish it’s quite easy to start to think that they’re just scared and deliberately being nasty because their job/reputation/research grant is at stake.
We’ve all felt good and performed a victory dance when we’ve said or thought something that nobody else agrees with, and yet we turn out to be right. Woohoo! In your face establishment! Conspiracy theories appeal to that exact part of us, they make us feel intellectually superior and appeal to our capacity for wonder and intrigue. But all conspiracy theories, when examined properly and without hysterics, collapse under their own weight. This book is no exception. Wikipedia shows how implausible ‘New Chronology’ would be.

6. The whole ‘carbon dating is inaccurate’ argument has been around for ages, used most often by dumb-ass creationists who think the world is 6000 years old, despite radio-carbon dating saying it’s millions of years old. The evidence doesn’t fit my beliefs therefore the evidence must be flawed/wrong. Yes, radiometric dating is approximate but there is more than just one method of radio carbon dating! See here for a good list. And when all these different, independent verified methods of dating point towards a similar answer we can conclude that maybe, just maybe, it is accurate?

I could go on, but I’m tired and I imagine you’re bored of this expansive (and probably unexpected) reply! (Life, have one, possibly get one? I hear you say!)
One reason for this exhaustive rebuttal is that I thought I’d show you how a Skeptic behaves when asked to look at something or believe something they are told. Try to never take anything at face value, consider and research into the claim or belief, look at all possibilities; eliminate the unlikely, preposterous or downright fraudulent and draw your own conclusions. In short think for yourself! It’s hard work, time consuming and not always possible to do, but it’s a damn good viewpoint to have.