Free Allegiance Forums

So, me and my friends are starting an alternate history project. We're wondering what it would be like if people argued to figure out what was actually going on instead of who has the loudest lungs. We need a good starting point though. We need the earliest point in time that someone had an idea that was shot down simply because "You're wrong. No, I don't have a reasonable reason for this, you just are.", sort of like Galileo, or the guy who said "I don't think we breathe the Holy Spirit, I think it's oxygen and it lets us survive" and got burned at the stake for it.

I figured I'd come here to find a starting point, as this seems to be the perfect place to get a fairly accurate answer via riled nerds who want everyone to know what they think. So, input? What's the earliest example you can think of/find?

This is a misguided project.

Our current concept of "truth" is a fairly recent innovation.

Belief without evidence is as old as humanity. It started with the first shaman of the first tribe and the first creation myth.

Ok then, look at it as looking for the correct answer instead of the loudest answer. Belief without evidence is fine, but what I'm looking for is what would've changed if, when evidence appeared, belief changed. All I need from you guys is a starting point, a point in time where evidence was shot down by bigotry. The earliest such time is what I'm looking for.

I think I understand where you are trying to go with this, but I think you could get a better return on your time on a different project.

What I think you are shooting for is a reversal of human nature, at which point you can start at the beginning of history

"Beginning of History". Can I get a name or even year? I don't care if I'm not gonna get a good return on my time, that wasn't my question.

who the $#@! are you? this thread looks like complete trollbait

I'm Beez. I've been in this community for a few years now, took a break for a while but came back recently. I don't see why it matters who I am. The community is pretty much pure trolls anyway, you don't need trollbait to attract them here.

Hi Beez,

I see the idea behind this project and yes this is an interesting play of thoughts. But after working on it for a while you will most likely come to the point, where you see, that it's not that simple. Just arguing more resonable won't make the world a whole better place. It's more complex.
I would suggest you and your friends read and discuss Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer "Dialectic of Enlightment". Their starting point is the myths of the ancient Greeks and they show how from there on a reasonable way of thinking develops, but reproduces its own myths again.

i would also recommend reading The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man

I feel like I'm being misunderstood. I'm not looking to see how much of a better place the world would be, this is very simply a curiosity thing. The idea popped into my head, and I'm incapable of letting things just float by. My curiosity demands that I find out. The point of this is to see what would be different, and you can't deny that yes it would be very different. Possibly worse, possibly better, who knows. The key is to find out in our own way, while maybe throwing a few homemade twists in along the way. I'll check those links.