@ Nathanial.Dread

Imho it's a valid term, and you've just helped explain why. First-hand direct experience & contemplation, is that to be discounted in the quest for knowledge? There are plenty approaches to seeking truth, including the stance that truth objectively isn't real.

You may choose verifiable experimentation to be the best option, which is a reasonable stance to take, but imho it's foolish to not be aware of its limitations. It's one of the few things I like about Nietzsche, his realization that science is great at describing how things are, but fails at explaining why things are the way the are. I try to not pick favorites.

Wiki:

[spoiler]Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[/spoiler]

Just look at those Thangka videos I've posted in my last post. Would you really be comfortable claiming that Tibetan monks know nothing about architecture?

But yeah I admit it was a bad term for what I was trying to get across, language failed me.

I meant a few scientific &  political/economic ideologies being the root cause for what I consider toxic for society. Scientism among them, especially for the population to keep silent when absolutely redundant & nefarious technologies are implemented, all for the believe in a higher power(science, or government). Then there's the ideologies of the ruling class, Eugenics,Technocracy,Social Darwinism etc.

@Sphorange

Well I think it's safe to say that in recent history, the aboriginal Australians probably came from Papua New Guinea. As for before that & the Poly,Micro etc-nesians, I don't know.

I faintly recall having read that Papuans have a good chunk of Indonesian ancestry. I think it's fair to say that the Nesians have East/Central Asian ancenstry. From when and where though, I don't know. Could have been a few tribes of the Siberians that made it to northern & south America. Peruvians supposedly made it to the eastern Islands. Interesting to note in that context are the Olmec jade masks that are of a chinese style.

Yonaguni Japan is also of interest as the location of a hypothetical ancient high culture.

Then there's the myth of Mu. I'm not sure what to think of it. Certainly not much to see much on satellite images, as opposed to the supposed locations of Atlantis & Lemuria. I'll attach some pictures of those two, what I find suspicious are these gigantic fissures.

But then there's also the huge landmass under New Zealand & Polynesia. Certainly the only thing visible in the area that looks like a continent.

Yeah Australia was in a comparably safe spot. But still the sudden rise of sea levels were still no joke if Hancock is right, which I think he is. Up to people like him to really get into it and look at what makes sense from the timeline. Genetic analysis also keeps supporting some of these theories.

I'll also post an interesting map from James Churchward.

You also might enjoy this blog post.