There are plenty of reasons that believing in pseudoscience is damaging. It is damaging in a couple of ways. First of all, the belief in pseudoscience or pseudo-archaeology for the matter, perpetuates the problem in a society. The Loch Ness monster and Big Foot always seem to have a following, with claims of how to find and where to find, or sightings here or there. Constantly there are documentaries on History or Discovery channel, a place where people should assumably be able to go to learn something useful or interesting. But rather, the only thing that really fills these channels are shows and docu-series that explain how aliens have really been alongside us this whole time, giving us new technology as we “earn it.” And what further perpetuates the problem is that these programs bring in people with Ph.D’s, and sometimes, most times, these people are not educated in a way relevant to the topic. In this, the audience then unknowingly believes what these people have to say. In other words, the blind are leading the blind. People who have Ph.D’s are known to be intellectual, as a society we view these degrees as prestigious, and rightly so, it does take a lot of work to obtain a doctoral degree. But the History and Discovery channel brings these people in to essentially talk about their opinion on the subject. The second reason this can be damaging is in a personal way. When an individual personally believes in pseudo-archaeology such as Atlantis or the aliens building the pyramids, they instantly rewrite history in their own mind, which will then try to refute any real historical fact that comes of those topics. Rejecting the truth that comes out of science, history, and archaeology can be damaging, to understand the human race, it is important to know and understand everything collectively about our past.
The problem with disbelief in the human past and the archaeology of it makes an archaeologists job and studies pointless. As discussed in class, archaeology is a destructive science, meaning we destroy sites to learn more about our past. Choosing not to believe what an archaeologist finds is like saying their work was pointless and that the site was destroyed for no good reason. I am sure that an archaeologist wouldn’t care about these few opinions people had, however, it is still demeaning. An individual wouldn’t likely reject a scientifical fact, but when it comes to an archaeological fact with hard evidence, people don’t want to believe that. Engineers make mistakes (Apollo 13…) yet they are still regarded as some of the smartest people on the planet. Archaeologists again have hard evidence (even material culture) and there would still be disbelief.
Well said! Your comparison of uneducated sources spreading information to the uneducated public being similar to “the blind are leading the blind”, is an excellent way of explaining the phenomenon. Not only does this metaphor describe Ph. D holders speaking to the public about a topic they are not educated on, I believe that it can be broadened to include the pseudo archaeological society as a whole. Whether these pseudoscientists claim to be archaeologists or professional scientists, the public eye often views these people, as well as their claims, to be factually true. It is probable that those uneducated in the field seeking to learn more about archaeology (public) trust pseudoscientific claims because they ultimately do not know any better. They trust that these pseudo scientists have followed scientific method and even though they may not present it, the claims are held up by factual data and evidence. And worst of all, the pseudoarchaeologists rarely, if ever, believe to be “blind” as well in this scenario. Often they believe that little evidence, opinion, or “I just know it!”, is more than enough to support their beliefs.
Your point of archaeologists’ claims being rejected regardless of hard hitting evidence is another interesting idea that I agree is in fact true. But, your point that engineers and other professionals make mistakes and do not see nearly as much backfire from the public is a new idea to me. I feel that it would be useful to examine why this occurs and the reasoning may be used to prevent further public doubt towards professional archaeologist, and rather steer that doubt in the direction of pseudoarchaeologists.