From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Turns out that there's a great mountain range in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Judging on this image, it would've probably been flooded in the final glacial retreat ~10 000 years ago. Of course, the area was probably completely uninhabited: the earliest boat was found in Holland from around 6000 years before our era (1000 Inventions and Discoveries by Roger Bridgman and the Smithsonian), and no links between this range and the continents: the ocean surrounding it is too deep. There's also a lot of similar ridges in all the oceans, meaning that it's purely coincidental that there was a now-flooded island ridge that existed in the time Plato mentioned. I'm thinking of making some more parody, kind of like that idea I'm working on with homotoxicology. Yeah, I have a lot of free time. How else do you think I'm always able to be on here? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's too deep. In some places even now (like Iceland) it does reach above sea level, but there would only be a little more of that (not much) during the last ice age. See HERE and HERE. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) And... what exactly? ТyYes? 03:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The midatlantic ridge? Yah, that isnt Atlantis. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Is the MSN article referring to Helike? --Wackyvorlon (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is misclassified. Plato's Atlantis is not pseudoscience, it's simply philosophy[edit]

Pseudoscience is only the way in which some authors of modern times interpret their texts. That is, the method little or nothing scientific that some use to interpret the philosophical writings of Timaeus and Critias.

The history of Atlantis has been the subject of study and analysis, and has been the subject of numerous academic doctoral theses throughout history, almost from the origins of the first medieval universities. So, all the doctors who throughout history been confronted with the narrative about Atlantis from different points of view simply been doing mere pseudoscience? Of course not, because they have used historical scientific methods of criticism, analysis and hermeneutics of texts.

My suggestion is that this entry should be changed to Philosophy, and from there, make a link to pseudoscientific approaches, or to pseudoscientific interpretations of Plato's Atlantis. Just as (for to be honest intellectually) make other link to a page about historical scientific approaches, or historical scientific interpretations about Plato's Atlantis.

Being this a rationalistic Wikipedia, some seem to forget that many great scholars throughout history have considered, precisely, to Plato as the father of the true rational thought, or at least, as one of the pioneers of rationalism. -- (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Our goal here at RationalWiki is expressly not to be encyclopedic, but to focus on the cranks and the pseudoscience when dealing with all topics. As such, our article on Atlantis will be focused on the nuts that think it was a real place (which it wasn't). For an example of the type of material we deal with, see here, here and here. The type of angle you discuss seems more akin to the one taken here, and that is not what we try to do here at RW.
  • You mention medieval universities. One of the major reasons Atlantis recieved so much interest from the scholastics was because for the longest time, the Timaeus was the only Platonic dialogue which was available in Europe, IIRC — and as misfortune would have it, the Timaeus being Plato's trippiest work by far. See here for more detail.
  • While medieval scholars often did the best they could for their time, it's anachronistic to suggest that they used "scientific methods". In fact, their methods were not scientific even by early modern period standards of science (which, in turn, fail to pass as scientific today). The hermeneutical methods you reference, while certainly not useless, were not scientific eitherWikipedia's W.svg.
  • For our views on Plato, see our article on the ol' bugger.
Hope this helps! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanations. However, apparently you did not read my arguments well. You have focused only on the medieval scholars, but you have completely ignored the part where I say that from then until modern times, that is, until today, because many graduates and doctors from the academic and university world have chosen as theme, matter or issue for a thesis the narrative of Plato's Atlantis, and this still continues today.
If Atlantis is pseudoscience, according to this wiki, then, all the good academic researchers who have devoted time to the study of Plato's Atlantis, from any point of view, are all pseudoscientific authors, by the mere fact of studying or investigating something that is mere pseudoscience, according to this wiki. However, we know it is not. For this reason, what is really rational (besides correct) that must be done here is to differentiate concepts well. Making it clear that the Plato's Atlantis, by itself, is not mere pseudoscience, it is simply, classical Greek philosophy; an example of ancient philosophical literature. While pseudoscience is the method or the form with which certain authors have faced to Plato's Atlantis. Just as many other reliable and serious authors (located at the opposite extreme) have faced the study of Plato's Atlantis with a methodical critique, with historical scientific methods.
What is mixed, confuses, and in this case, pointing to the Atlantis theme as pseudoscience is undoubtedly incorrect and this confuses readers who are not conversant in the subject, or who do not have enough academic training to know that it is an incorrect classification. I assume that the purpose of this wiki is not to misinform or bring more darkness, but rather the opposite: to bring the light of knowledge into darkness, through rational critical thinking...
At least, this article about Atlantis should be changed (the title) to "Pseudo-scientific approach of Atlantis". And in the same way there should be another page or entry about "Historical-scientific approach to Atlantis", and a central page called Atlantis, which simply (as a disambiguation page) links to the other two, and with a brief explanation or simple description of what is a philosophical dialogue of Plato, and if you want, a summary of what is described in the Timaeus and the Critias on Atlantis.
By the way, the credible skeptical source you refer, well says "legendary island", not "mythical island". It is obvious that the author is well aware of the fact that there is no ancient source of Greek mythology where the island Atlantis has been mentioned or described as a myth. In fact, Atlantis is not mentioned in any ancient Greek work on mitography. Strangely enough (and I do not know yet why this is always omitted) Atlantis is mentioned only in works by "scientific" authors: philosophers, geographers, historians, mathematicians, etc., but never in works or ancient Greek mythological treatises. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases where such authors (not mythographers) mention it, they do so as an example of a legend or tradition based on a true story. And in only one known case, the question is raised as to whether what the Egyptians told Solon would have been a legend or myth, or a history (see the historian Plutarch).
In any case, the correct term is certainly the one used in the skeptical dictionary: "legendary island", for certainly a "legendary island" is not the same as a "mythical island". They are very different philosophical and literary concepts, however, you have reversed my edit about it, without the slightest explanation, or argument of why you believe that the correct thing is not what is said in the skeptical dictionary.
Pato's Atlantis can be classified in the literary genre of the "historical legend", ie a legend of historical type, or legend based on some history, or legend inspired by certain facts or historical facts, or even as "parahistorical legend" If preferred, but it is not a myth. The myths have a number of common denominators that do not exist in the historical legend of Atlantis, more than partially, and those that can be found in any type of old story of legendary type. All aspects are not necessarily fulfilled, and this has been well demonstrated and argued by several academic scholars of modern times.
On the other hand, it is inadmissible to ignore the author in his own context, that is, to ignore Plato himself, and what he himself thought of the myths. Plato, by means of Socrates (guarantor of truth and intellectual honesty, for him and for all his listeners) Plato makes a difference in the Atlantis account, after having always pointed out in all the previous cases, when he is narrating a myth or An allegory, he clarifies that, in this case, "it is not a myth invented (or fabricated), but a true story" (alethinon logon), which is "based on ancient traditions (ek palaias akoês)."
It is also unknown how Plato himself was a great enemy and very aggressive critic of those who fabricated myths. Plato hated myths and myth-makers, so how could Plato contradict himself, and so blatantly shameful, before his disciples, before his admirers, and before all the thinkers of his time, precisely Doing just the opposite of what he had been fighting so hard for years, and criticized as something immoral and unworthy?
To accuse Plato of "myth maker" or "myth-maker", as some (incomprehensibly academic) author proclaims, does not hold, save for the argument of force and the weight of the fallacy of authority. In any case, it denotes authentic ignorance about the work and philosophical thought of Plato.
Best regards… -- (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is not about Atlantis as myth or philosophy but about the "I found Atlantis!" pseudoscience/-history/-archaeology that mirrors what Ron Wyatt and others have engaged in vis-a-vis biblical mythology, or the ancient astronauts stuff of Erich von Däniken and Ancient Aliens.
We don't need to rename the article either because this approach is set out at the very beginning of the article and we don't assume the readers are totally inept. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Thank you for your input. I have since changed the nav on the article from pseudoscience to pseudoarchaeology (which is the correct one). Please note also that our nav templates are intended to sort by our take on a particular topic, rather than sort by what the topic itself is about on its own terms. This practice might appear to lack neutrality or be unencyclopedic — and great, if so! Because we're not an encyclopedia, nor are we even trying avoid inserting original analysis into our coverage of the issues. See the Wombat's reply above. As pertains to Plato's role as a critic of mythmaking, you are indeed correct — but you oversimplify, apparently failing to see his own role in doing the same. See here for a concise philosophical review of this interesting "contradiction" in Plato. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Richat Structure theory[edit]

A recent video is garnering a massive amount of likes making a false theory of Richat Structure being possibly a place of Atlantis with some bullshit like scientists are struggling to explain the formation. The youtube channel Bright Insight is somehow a verified account with tons of subscribers. Dogeatsdog (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)