A question.

This is something that has been playing on my mind a lot lately. Some of you know, but I am currently studying to become an archaeologist (I can't wait to get my degree and go! xDD), but recently there is one thing that has been in my mind at all times.

Archaeologists have a responsibilty and an obligation to inform the public of any and all discoveries they make, in fact if no report is made after a certain time period then they can be struck off as an archaeologist.

Though it is rare for something to go unreported xDDD who wouldn't want the five miutes of fame and the glory? This leads me to my question.

Say a discovery is made, a major one, something that could change the way we view everything around us and alter the way we think forever. Should something so important be told to the public? If it was a discovery that could lead to conflict and controversy, would it be wiser to keep it out of public knowledge? Are some discoveries too important to be told?

It is very unlikely that something so important would be discovered, but there is always that chance doing archaeology xDDD I think I have my opinion already, IMO the truth should always be told, no matter what the circumstances, for example the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls caused trouble but was still reported and publicised.

I just wondered what other people's views were. So what's your opinion?​

 

Archeology and Anthropology are the fields I am studying too, as well as work with forensics and psychology. Being in the scientific and/or anthropological and historical fields can lead a person to discover things that are even -already known- and can offend people who do not really research, let alone ever watch documentaries which are accessible to nearly anyone. I can say from proof that there are some things already we have that are common fact amongst scientists, historians, and any people who educate themselves and are scholars in their own rights, that I have annoyed friends or family with when I tried to explain how something simply worked. Of course, many people here get to read my very long posts and some send me nice messages saying it's cool, and others...well they make sure to tell me I'm long-winded. =:)

Science has come a long way and you are entering a field which receives a LOT of scrutiny by others who do -not- want to know things, or get too easily confused. Archeology delves into the history of humankind, fossil records, primitive (not too fond of the word but it's there) cultures of the past, anthropological political comprehensions, religious studies and examinations, diversity and that blasted theory of Evolution. It is a -fascinating- field and I love it, if nothing else just for answers for myself. However, despite the fact that some news upsets some people, others who may be laymen or casual scholars do like to learn these things that are discovered. The history channel, science channel, discovery channel, animal planet, etc would not be so popular if no one cared to know.

The only dangers you might see are the following. In presenting what you know you'd want to make sure you keep an open scientific debating mind about what you are doing and examining so that you make good hypotheses and you also aren't too quick to judge just what it is you've discovered. There is nothing like making a -find- and finding out it's not so cool or you were in error about it. People will come out of the woodwork to rip apart at your work which includes the University or College you work through with your paper. After these guys get done, the Creationists come in, and other skeptics, and other University professors. It is after this that the information tends to hit other places if it is deemed important, and if not, it goes on a shelf, or might be presented in some program later, or can be used as evidence to support new theories. I really see no danger that is so catastrophic to not go through this process, though it's tedious and sometimes boring to sit around waiting. The worst fears I ever might have are that someone rips it apart and finds flaws in what I've done that I cannot defend and have a counter support to keep that thing they pick at.

Also, I won't say I am crazy about Creationist supporters in science because they can be very irritating as they may themselves make you a public figure as some people I know of have had happen, in a negative light that they must defend. Of course, a Creationist scientist also may get scrutinized for his or her work too, so it all balances out somehow in the end. The joy of science really to me is that we -do- get to learn the facts, and that includes the person sitting in front of a TV or the person reading a book from the bookstore. Having this information circulated is critical and also propels science forward so that it is with not just the 'educated elite' but with the common every day people. So to me, there is very little I think people need shielded from in science as far as archeology itself goes or any discoveries made. It gives us answers and more questions and some people love that sort of thing. The worst thing you have to worry about is scrutiny, which in a way is a good thing, because if what you find and report can stand up to it, you've made a great contribution to science and the world at large.

I hope what I've said helps you out some. Even if somehow what you could discover might baffle people for a while, it's part of the grander picture and I don't see any harm really coming out of it. Good luck with your studies!

 

In todays world, if you were ot discover something that would change history, like the knowledge of alien races or, God/s being real or fake, then it would depend intially on the person who discovered it, for example if someone who didn't believe in a God or Gods, then they will most likely hide the evidence and the same would go if someone believed in God or Gods, they to would hide the evidence, it mostly depends on your belief.

I myself would show it to the world, just to see how people would deal with the change.