On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting

Pseudohistory
Learning outcomes
- Can infer what will come next in an unstructured text by using contextual,
grammatical and lexical cues.
- Can distinguish between the main idea and supporting ideas in a linguistically complex
academic text.
- Can guess the meaning of unfamiliar words from context in a linguistically
complex academic text.
-
Before Reading

We have just read about famous archaeological places around the globe. Now, let’s take a
look at another side of archaeology and science.

A. Read the following text. Some words have been deleted. Try to use grammar and
the general context to find the words that are missing.

If one flips through the channels today, they find that there are several sensationalized
that appear to be uncovering “hidden truths” about archeology. There are shows
Ancient Aliens that purport aliens had a direct hand in our past.
Additionally, there are shows TV that talk about the same ideas such as Stargate* that
are merely works of fiction. Being able to tell the difference pseudoscience and
fiction is important because the is all fun and games, but the could
be dangerous to one’s ability to have an accurate view of the world and one must consider the
ways they can debunk such claims.

Stargate: is a military science fiction and media franchise.

Pseudoscience – Fact or Fiction? (2014, April 1). Retrieved June 24, 2017, from
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp203h-ss14/2014/04/01/pseudoscience-fact-or-fiction/

B. Now, let’s reflect on the strategies you used to infer the missing words. Did you
use grammar cues? Vocabulary? The general context? Discuss these questions in
pairs.

Predicting

A. Do you think that it is possible that there has been alien presence in our planet? Why
or why not?

B. Can the idea of alien influence in human history be considered science? The text mentions
the word pseudoscience. Do you know what this means? Take a look at the meaning of its
prefix and try to guess its meaning.

Pseudo: word-forming element meaning "false; feigned; erroneous; in appearance only;

resembling," from Greek pseudo-, comb. form of pseudes "false, lying; falsely; deceived," or
pseudos "falsehood, untruth, a lie," both from pseudein "to deceive, cheat by lies."
Reading

On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting

Pseudohistory
1. Pseudohistory is not confined to quirky theories about lost fleets belonging to Alexander
the Great, or Mongol raiders or Irish monks visiting the Americas. Those are just a few of
the many varieties of pseudo-history. Atlantis is a perennial pseudohistorical favorite.
Ancient astronauts, myths of the Ten Lost Tribes, catastrophic events altering ancient
history, occult and spiritualist accounts of prehistory, various racist cosmogonies,
pyramidology, lost civilizations in the Earth’s core or under the Antarctic or deep within the
Amazon jungles—all are expressions of pseudohistory, tinged with pseudoarchaeology and
buttressed by pseudoscience.
2. As pop culture shows us, these ideas fascinate people. They form the premises of
movies, television series, novels, and video games. They provide fodder for hours of
fantastic chat on late night radio and drive legions of faithful audiences to weekend
conferences devoted to the latest hot idea. Pseudohistory can be fun, just like a Star Trek
convention or a Renaissance fair can be fun—as long as your pockets are deep enough
and your skepticism sufficiently submerged.
3. But there is a dark side. Adherents of Heaven’s Gate* killed themselves so they could join
god-like aliens on their approaching spaceship. Followers of the Nation of Islam killed
each other in power struggles over the movement’s money and property. Identity
Christians killed enemies, particularly if they were Jewish, African-American, or
representatives of the United States government, which they viewed as under the control
of Satan. In each of these examples, pseudohistorical beliefs provided the justification for
atrocious actions. And like all pseudohistory, these beliefs were mistaken and wrong—
dead wrong. It is a situation that amply justifies research, study, and analysis.
4. Students and the general public ask questions about pseudohistorical and pseudoscientific
ideas, and they deserve answers based on research and facts, not simply condescending
dismissals of their questions. They need to be shown the difference between history and
pseudohistory. They need reliable facts and unbiased narratives so they can see for
themselves why genuine history is based on valid, verifiable knowledge, while
pseudohistory is raised up on false knowledge masquerading as history.
5. Historians need to confront and refute any and every expression of pseudohistory when
they engage students in the classroom, when they speak to the public, when they write
books and articles, and when they publish on the Internet. Yes, there is a lot of
pseudohistory out there. A lot of people are peddling it for reasons ranging from the
naive to the nefarious. Historians should help expose this high strangeness to the light of
reasonable discourse and contribute to explaining the appearance and persistence of the
phenomenon.
6. Pseudohistory can suicide and even genocide. It is well known that Nazism based its
ideologies on beliefs about the human past that are distinctly pseudohistorical. Millions of
people died in the Second World War and the Holocaust. Today’s neo-Nazis, however,
give us ample and current evidence that some people have learned nothing from the
carnage created by Hitler and his followers. Incredibly, despite the magnitude of the
Holocaust, some people have denied that it occurred, an act of pernicious pseudohistory
with adherents who launched the voice of denial virtually days after the death camps
were closed with the defeat of Nazi Germany.
7. Confronting pseudohistory and pseudoscience can be a tricky enterprise. While a
carefully researched and lucid argument is essential, it is only a beginning. Scholars also
need to
 approach the fringes of discourse with diplomacy and without condescension.
Adherents of pseudo knowledge tend to have a fortress mentality about their ideas.
They have experienced a lot of negativity in espousing their beliefs, so they tend to
take a defensive stance almost immediately. Authors promoting pseudohistorical
and pseudoscientific ideas often take advantage of this fortress mentality. They
complain that mainstream scholars are elitists and tools of the establishment
seeking to suppress the real truth about history and science. They frequently allege
that there is a vast conspiracy to prevent their ideas from having a fair hearing with
the public. This circumstance allows various fringe scholars to form alliances, even
though their individual theories often stand in stark contradiction to one another. It
is sufficient in their beleaguered arena to find solidarity in the shared stance
against commonly accepted ideas and the theories of mainstream scholars about
the human past.
8. Scholars attempting to refute pseudohistory and pseudoscience face an uphill
battle. The primary building blocks of academic knowledge are supposed to be
facts and reason. Those commodities are in short supply and heavily discounted in
the realm of fringe scholarship. In that world, opinion masquerades as respectable
theory or even proven fact. Bias, prejudice, or a quest for large royalty checks are
the primary motivators, not an objective search for the truth.
9. Another problem for academics who debunk fake and spurious knowledge is the
uncertainty about the nature and methods of history that have arisen out of
postmodernism. One reviewer of my book Invented Knowledge commented that it
“proffers a dubious ideal of authentic scholarship: it’s not true, as he claims, that
real history and science always proceed from evidence to hypothesis.” First, I am
pretty sure that I did not make that claim. What I did write was that “objective
scholars with an honest agenda view evidence without bias or preconceptions, or at
least they try hard to guard against them as far as is humanly possible.” A few lines
later, I state that “objective, classically trained historians try to look at all the
available evidence and seek to develop an interpretation or analysis that
encompasses the entire body of evidence in all its complexity.”
10. In retrospect, I probably should have stated more explicitly that professional
historians sometimes write history as poorly as pseudohistorians write
pseudohistory. I also must accept that use of the word “objective” is instantly
controversial since objectivity is impossible in a universe of relative truths and
many-faceted facts. How can I view the attainment of absolute truth as anything
other than a futile quest? Okay, I agree that objectivity and truth are elusive
goals, but so is the search for an end to poverty and the realization of peace on
Earth. That does not mean the quest should be abandoned. As Polybius said
over 2,000 years ago, “If history is deprived of the truth, we are left nothing but
an idle, unprofitable tale.” Too often we are left with pseudohistory.
* Heaven’s Gate: American UFO religious group.

Taken and adapted from: Fritze, R. (2009, November). On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting
Pseudohistory. Historically Speaking, 10(5), 2-5.