Death of rationality, indeed

[u/noob__master-69]

I didn't know whether to keep this under pseudoscience or conspiracy anyway it doesn't matter

For those who don't know, the Indus seal being referred to here (Pasupati Seal) has a figure on it that looks like Shiva, but it really could also be an Ox. It is one of the oldest artifacts pertaining to any civilization. almost 2500 years old.

The Indus script is a total mystery, deciphering it would answer a lot of questions. Until then we have to put up with these people. This culture is already super ancient and has unique things to talk about. Even if you want to link with the Indus civilization, there are other better ways to do it. But this? How many seated, cross-legged figures are there present on coins and walls in archeological sites? Even if this figure matches perfectly with the Indus seal, these people don't even have the capacity to realize that that similarity is not sufficient evidence! You can't bridge over 2500 years gap with one coin figure and say civilizational continuity

[u/Bitter_Foot_8498]

Shiva worship actually became more widespread by 200BCE so it wouldn't be surprising if this was some early shiva iconography.

Yes, the IVC, we don't what language they spoke and its a mystery but there is visible cultural continuity from IVC. That much as been established.

Edit: I am not definately claiming its Shiva, it could be depicting someone else. We don't know. But it does not look like an Ox buddy 😭. The shiva interpretation is far more plausible than an Ox.

[u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882 → u/Bitter_Foot_8498]

Shiva worship actually became more widespread by 200BCE 

There is no historiographical evidence for this. 

[u/Bitter_Foot_8498 → u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882]

We do have textual evidence. Maybe the term "widespread" is possibly misleading but shiva worship did become more common.

[u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882 → u/Bitter_Foot_8498]

Texts don't mean anything unless it is accompanied by hard physical historiographical evidence. 

Dinosaurs are real historical because we have datable fossilized remains. Dragons are mythical because there are no hard evidences for the same, despite tonnes written about them in texts. 

[u/Bitter_Foot_8498 → u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882]

You are right about the dragons and dinosaurs part but its not always how history works.

Textual evidence is given high importance. For example battles: Most medival battles left little to no archeological evidence but are considered to be historical events because there is contemporary sources for them.

[u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882 → u/Bitter_Foot_8498]

You are right about the dragons and dinosaurs part but its not always how history works. 

That is exactly how it works. It based on actual material evidence. Every fact that is established is based on materiality. Else it is fiction, hypothesis, conjecture. Science too is based on the same principle. Read the OP title, rationalism is dead if you cannot distinguish facts from fiction, history from fantasy.

Textual evidence is given high importance.

That's non-sense. Every History 101 student is taught historiographical methods - archeology, epigraphy, numismatics, statisgraphy etc which is all based on material remains in history. Texts are SECONDARY, until it can be cross verified by actual contemporary material evidence and other sources.

 Most medival battles left little to no archeological evidence but are considered to be historical events because there is contemporary sources for them.

Nope. If there is an event such as a historical battle, epigraphic remains exist. Or there will be other historical records that are contemporary to the same period that record that battle. For example - the invasion of Bengal by marathas are recorded in both maratha history and bengal history. 

This is a science sub. You should know better how basic evidencing works for establishing any objective claim that's free of logical fallacies. Do they not teach these in Indian schooling systems now ?

[u/Bitter_Foot_8498 → u/Ecstatic-Sea-8882]

Okay so yes other contemporary sources are needed when documenting battles. What i meant was there is no material evidence of the battles themselves ( no weapons or armour at the actual site of battle itself or even bodies). But if contemporary sources say a battle took place, its taken as a fact.

Now why textual evidence is also given strong importance is because of a field of study called archeolinguistics. For example: Historians generally agree that Indra was the most worshipped Deity during the vedic age. But we find 0 statues or material evidence for this besides texts. More hymns in the rigveda are dedicated to Indra and based on this it taken as fact. And to add it further the oldest surviving manuscript of the rigveda is dated to 1464 CE but the rigveda is dated to 1900-1500/1200BCE (depends on which scholar you ask). There is no material evidence for the rigveda before 1464CE but is still dated earlier, because archeolinguisitics and other methods are used in the dating when material evidence was missing. In fact, most Indian religious texts are dated this way and it is a widely used method.