daniken

The Piri Reis Map also finds mention in the controversial 'Chariots of Gods' book by Erich Von Daniken which is largely labeled as 'pseudoscientific'.

Edit: Reading further down that page I see a positive reference to Erich von Daniken (NB as I have mentioned in another comment, I learned the importance of skepticism from the works of von Daniken at a very young age).

When I was about 9 years old someone gave me a copy of an Erich von Daniken book, which I inevitably thought was the wonderful thing I had ever read.

Reading this article sort of left me feeling the same way I imagine a child might feel when reading Erich von Daniken or a book about Roswell or something like that: a set of allegations that are (1) surprising, (2) seem to make sense, and (3) that are totally beyond the reader's capacity for counterargument.

It's Von Daniken's books that lead me here: Why do people think funny things.

When I was young Von Daniken's book had just come out and popular culture was awash with this sort of stuff.

The irony of writers like Rundkvist lumping Heyerdahl in with frauds like Von Daniken is that Von Daniken's theories were predicated on the assumption that "primitive" peoples didn't have the ability to accomplish such achievements, and critics of Heyerdahl predicated their criticism on the same assumption.

Leading us to be in a thread about von Daniken, making fun of people who have a belief that meets a higher bar for evidence than the clear majority of the world.

Every prize in the first ceremony was really an insult (Dan Quayle for demonstrating the need for education, Edward Teller for peace, Erich von Daniken for literature, etc.) But it drifted towards their current goal of "making people laugh and then making them think".

The irony of writers like Rundkvist lumping Heyerdahl in with frauds like Von Daniken is that Von Daniken's theories were predicated on the assumption that "primitive" peoples didn't have the ability to accomplish such achievements, and critics of Heyerdahl predicated their criticism on the same assumption.

Every prize in the first ceremony was really an insult (Dan Quayle for demonstrating the need for education, Edward Teller for peace, Erich von Daniken for literature, etc.) But it drifted towards their current goal of "making people laugh and then making them think".

It's Von Daniken's books that lead me here: Why do people think funny things.

When I was young Von Daniken's book had just come out and popular culture was awash with this sort of stuff.

Leading us to be in a thread about von Daniken, making fun of people who have a belief that meets a higher bar for evidence than the clear majority of the world.