Chariot Of The Gods Argument

Introduction:

The book, Chariot of the Gods? (von Daniken 1972), fails to use appropriate argumentative techniques to prove its claims. This essay will analyse two arguments from the book. The first section will analyse the argument from chapter 2 by identifying the marks of pseudoscience and the marks of a good explanation. The second section will be analysing the argument in chapter 5 by discussing some pseudoscientific marks, fallacies, rhetoric and cognitive biases that the argument includes. The analysis of these two arguments will show that the evidence provided by the author does not support the claims made about prehistoric space travel to Earth.

Argument that the Unexplained can be Explained through Prehistoric Space Travel:

The
One such hypothesis is the theory of evolution. This theory contains all the criteria of a good explanation, as it has a mechanism, which is the scientific proof of humans having survived and evolved through time. It also has predictive power and falsifiability because it was hypothesised and then proven through tests, such as fossil records. The theory is also compatible with existing scientific and historical knowledge, and has explanatory power as it explains the origin of the human species and why people are the way they are today. Conversely, the theory expressed in the Chariot of the Gods? (von Daniken 1972) fails to include the marks of a good explanation. The theory does not provide a mechanism as it does not explain how it was possible for time travel to occur centuries ago, and it does not have predictive power or falsifiability, as it is unable to be proven or tested. Further, it is incompatible with existing scientific knowledge, such as the theory of evolution; it also has no explanatory power, and multiplies entities beyond necessity, arguing that aliens were involved, and so does not include Ockham’s Razor (Schick and Vaughn 2014,
As well as the many marks of pseudoscience that the argument includes, there are also fallacies, rhetorical devices and cognitive biases used in the chapter. The author makes an argument from absent evidence and from ignorance, as in the last portion of the chapter he states that he has no proof of these claims, but that that the future will prove many of the claims, and argues that what is known to be true should be forgotten, because it is likely that this argument will be true (Schick and Vaughn 2014, pp.50-53). Moreover, the argument also uses the fallacy of a slippery slope, as the author argues that because it was thought absurd to land on the moon years ago, but it is now known that it is possible, and because the notion that a more intelligent being visited the Earth and taught ancient civilisations is similarly thought absurd, that eventually it will be known to be true that intelligent beings visited Earth centuries ago. As well as this, the main rhetorical device used by the author is the slant of rhetorical questions, which are used throughout the chapter. This is proven, as the author attempts to persuade the reader by questioning whether the purpose of life is to believe in truths or discover them, rather than arguing their case. Furthermore, the