About Atlantis

The short histories of these great Greek historians do not qualify as support for Mr. Carroll's original statement. They don't have enough reach. Just because they are historians does not make them right, infallible or omniscient.

How did any ancient Greek historians supposedly know enough about nine millennia for us to draw any conclusions from their writings about what may or may not have happened 9600 BCE? I would venture to say, "not much." Plato sums this point up nicely in his dialogue, Timaeus. And that was my point.

First a definition. Mr. Carroll's website includes a discussion on this important topic. He says, "Reasoning is said to be non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premises or if a given reason for taking an action is completely irrelevant to taking that action." And he gives some good examples. It appears he may actually have an understanding of the topic, so it puzzles me how he can use the term here.

Fact: Plato states that Atlantis sank after a great battle that took place approximately 9600 BCE.

Fact: Plato states several times in his dialogue, Timaeus, that the story of Atlantis was a true one.

Premise: Plato was telling the truth about Atlantis.

Discussion: Certainly, Mr. Carroll does not think Plato was giving us an account of a real event. He tells us that "Plato's purpose was not to pass on stories, but to create stories to teach moral lessons." It appears that Mr. Carroll is taking this as "truth," but he offers no proof that this was Plato's only purpose. On this matter, other scholars offer only conjecture based on opinion. Their years of study make their opinions "educated," but do not conclusively make them "truth." Education, experience and inherent intelligence do not confer omniscience.

Fact: A miniature Ice Age that lasted for 1,300 years ended abruptly about the time Plato gives for the destruction of Atlantis — 9620 BCE. Scientists do not know what caused this abrupt ending, but they suspect that the equally abrupt start was caused by the dumping of millions of cubic kilometers of fresh water into the North Atlantic from a spill of the prehistoric Lake Agassiz. The hypothesis states that this fresh water created a cap on the thermohaline circulation of the world's oceans.

Premise: A mega-tsunami caused the abrupt end to the Younger Dryas and this mega-tsunami was created by the subsidence of a large island or coastal landmass and stirred the ocean sufficiently to break through the thermohaline cap.

Discussion: Speaking hypothetically, how big a wave could have been created by the subsidence of a Texas-sized island in the middle of the Atlantic? Of course, this would depend on a number of factors, including rate of subsidence, size of each episode (if the entire subsidence did not proceed as a whole), and perhaps the interval between episodes. Based on studies of landslide-generated mega-tsunamis it would not be unreasonable to assume that such a subsidence could have created a wave 1-3 kilometers high. Could such a wave have stirred the North Atlantic sufficiently to break through the thermohaline cap? The assertion is that it could.

Fact: A moderately large trace of volcanic debris appears in the Greenland ice cores at 9620.77 BCE. The volcanic trace tapers off over the next two or more years in the ice core record.

Premise: This volcanic event was related to the event that triggered the abrupt end to the Younger Dryas.

Fact: The 1989 chart by Fairbanks in his Nature magazine article on 17,000 years of sea level change shows a 2-meter drop in sea levels worldwide at the end of the Younger Dryas (now estimated to be close to 9620 BCE).

Premise: This 2-meter drop is a proxy for a real event.

Fact: A 2-meter drop in sea levels worldwide could be accomplished by the tectonic subsidence of a Texas-sized plot of land by an average distance of one kilometer below sea level.

Premise: A Texas-sized plot of land subsided approximately 9620 BCE causing a 2-meter drop in sea levels worldwide.

Discussion: Without such a tectonic collapse, we are left to speculate that the water may have disappeared from such specious methods as siphoning by an armada of alien space craft, or an act of God, or something else equally untenable. If the 2-meter drop is indeed a proxy for a real event, then the only way realistically to achieve such a rapid drop is by the abrupt tectonic collapse of a large island or coastal area of land.

Fact: Plato's story of Atlantis was the story of the tectonic collapse of a large island in the North Atlantic Ocean about 9600 BCE.

Fact: Plato's Atlantis was west of the Strait of Gibraltar.

Fact: Plato's Atlantis was the size of Ancient Libya and Asia Minor combined.

Premise: Plato's Atlantis included most of the tectonic plate boundary from the Strait of Gibraltar to the mid-Atlantic ridge, including the Azores.

Fact: The Azores are a volcanic archipelago.

Premise: The tectonic collapse of 9620 BCE forced a volcanic eruption in what is now the Azores and this eruption left the trace in the Greenland ice cores at 9620.77 BCE.

Conclusion: All three of these events from scientific record indicate the past reality of Atlantis.

Non sequitur? On the contrary, I think it is indeed sequitur — the premises follow the facts, and the conclusion follows the premises. The premises have not yet been proven, certainly. Was Atlantis a reality? Maybe and maybe not. Despite what Mr. Carroll says, it is too early to close the book on this.

What do I call such an argument (that, since it's possible, it is reasonable to look for evidence, even with strong evidence against)? I call it a search for truth. Isn't that what science does? If Mr. Carroll is implying that this is a logical fallacy, I'd like to know which one. I am always anxious to hone my logical skills. There are a few instances in history of "strong evidence against a thesis" falling to new evidence in support of that thesis.

Is his "strong evidence" enough to discount any evidence in support of Atlantis? I'm certain some North American anthropologists asked similar questions about the long-standing dogma of "Clovis first." For many years, all proof to the contrary was ignored or ridiculed. The idea that such professionals could use such childishness is appalling. But the ad hominem arguments of people like Mr. Carroll are not "truth." Such ridicule of others is merely the attempt of a self-righteous individual to bolster their own ego. Unlike Mr. Carroll's approach, logical arguments, playing "devil's advocate," skeptical restraint and the like, do not require such appeals to emotion.

Mr. Carroll used an argument to ignorance (a logical fallacy) when he stated in his original article, "The fact that nobody in Greece for 9,000 years had mentioned a battle between Athens and Atlantis should serve as a clue that Plato was not talking about a real place or battle."

Mr. Carroll's website gives a good definition of this: "The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true."

Because there was no mention of Atlantis or a great battle in the preceding 9,000 years, that proves there was no Atlantis or great battle? Well, that sure sounds like an argument to ignorance to me.

If Atlantis was a real place and the battle was a real event, then Plato's dialogues on the subject explain why we don't have knowledge of those through the Greek historians.

Similarly, Europeans during the Middle Ages had become "young in mind," losing almost all knowledge of Greek philosophy until they regained it from the Islamic world in its Golden Age. And it took less than a thousand years to develop such ignorance, possibly only a few hundred. The Ancient Greeks had many more thousands of years to develop their own loss of social memory.

And I replied to his assertion (above) that Plato offered a clue as to why evidence of a prehistoric Athenian civilization has not been found. Plato stated that the prehistoric homeland of the Athenians was utterly destroyed. Yet, in addition to this assertion about a flood destroying Attica, I offered the recent evidence of buildings circa 10,000 BCE as possible proof of prehistoric, non-primitive Greeks. And Mr. Carroll possibly missed my first phrase in my previous paragraph, "As far as evidence of Plato's 'proto-Greeks,'..." because that is what that paragraph has to do with the story of Atlantis.

Let me say it another way. Mr. Carroll makes an assertion about there being no evidence of anything but primitives in the Balkans 9000 BCE, and when I offer what may be proof to the contrary (evidence of buildings and intricate sculpture 10,000 BCE in nearby Turkey, where the flood may not have reached), he seems oblivious to the connection.

I appreciate one thing from Mr. Carroll. His arguments challenge me to make my own arguments better, yet I wish he was better at his own arguments and wish also that he refrained from using ad hominem ridicule. Then we both might have more fun improving our logic.

Yet, Mr. Carroll seems to have done exactly what he says is not good logic. He has drawn a conclusion from speculations about possibilities. How? He thinks Atlantis was entirely fable and that Plato had no other purpose in presenting the story of that island than as a vehicle for presenting his views on society and philosophy. This is a speculation about possibilities. It is certainly a possibility, but it is not known to be true. He thinks the book on Atlantis is closed. This is a conclusion based, if only partially, on that speculation.

And how is Mr. Carroll such an expert on what things need explanation? Would he censor the research of certain subjects? Ban them? Outlaw them? Or would he merely ridicule the pursuit of truth on those subjects? I hope he can learn to remove ridicule from his arguments. That might help them to become stronger.

Which is more arrogant, someone who admits that they don't know if Atlantis is based on a real place (or is entirely myth), or someone who claims to know that Atlantis was, beyond any doubt, only a fable, though never substantiating that assertion with facts? Mr. Carroll is not immune from speculating, but he rather fancies that it is truth instead of opinion. If by "monger" Mr. Carroll means a "dealer in a specific commodity," I have no complaints. Yet, because of his penchant for, and enjoyment of, ridicule, I suspect he means the other definition of "monger," "a person promoting something undesirable," e.g. warmonger.

If the only purpose of Mr. Carroll's website was to help sharpen the logical skills of others, and to shed a light on muddy thinking, I would applaud his efforts, but add to that his selfish desire to put others down with ridicule and derision, I lose my enthusiasm for his efforts.

I have honed my skills through criticism from others, some far more acidic than Mr. Carroll's. But for a man who seems to hold sacred the art of logic, he uses entirely too much ad hominem (a logical fallacy). In fact, he seems by his statement above, to revel in it.

It is also interesting to note that one logical fallacy is not defined on Mr. Carroll's website — "ad hominem." Wikipedia defines this as, "an argument [that] consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." Quite simply, this is a personal attack, and can include an appeal to emotion using ridicule.

Why did he leave the definition of "ad hominem" out of his website? I can only guess (a speculation) that it might have taken the "fun" out of his ridiculing others if someone actually recognized that he was using this logical fallacy.

I'm uncertain to which "conditional hypothesis" Mr. Carroll is referring. His question was unclear at best. Nothing will follow from a confusing question, either, except perhaps a plea for clarification. I am open to his clarification, if he wants to offer it.

And isn't it a bit redundant to say "conditional hypothesis?" Every hypothesis is conditional, in a manner of speaking. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon. It is typically based on logically analyzed facts. A hypothesis remains active on the condition that it has not yet been proven or disproven.

And Mr. Carroll hits the nail on the head with his statement, "it would help tremendously if we had evidence that an island existed in this area at the time of these events."

We know that the Azores existed for several million years, but we do not yet have evidence that the area surrounding them was above sea level at any time in the geologically recent past. So, yes, we need such evidence. We do know, however, that most of the Azores sits atop an underwater plateau. All arguments about Atlantis hinge on this critical area. Prove that none of the current Atlantic sea bed was above sea level twelve thousand years ago and Atlantis will have been disproven. But that is a lot of territory to cover. Yet there may be additional evidence (geological evidence) in support of Atlantis.

[Addendum 2010:1001 — The 1948-49 Woods Hole Expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge included clues that some of the ridge may have been above water in the past. These include beach-like terraces more than a kilometer below sea level. There are other clues that some of the sea mounts in the area held subaerial phenomena indicating that their surfaces were exposed to open air in the geologically recent past.]

Fact: The area between the Azores and the Strait of Gibraltar has suffered a great deal of geological damage.

Fact: The tectonic plate boundary from Gibraltar to the Azores (the Gloria Fracture Zone) is broken up and indistinct.

Fact: There is a large bend in the boundary at the eastern end of the Azores archipelago. Up to this point from the East, the Africa-Eurasia boundary is largely East-West in its direction. From this bend toward the mid-Atlantic ridge, the boundary becomes Northwest-Southeast.

Fact: There is a large underwater plateau on which the bulk of the Azores chain sits.

Fact: There is a spreading center along that Northwest trending bend in the plate boundary called the Terceira Ridge. This means the boundary is divergent in that region.

Fact: Between here and Gibraltar, the boundary is transform or only slightly or intermittently convergent.

Fact: Across most of the Med, the boundary is strongly convergent.

Fact: The pattern of plate motion along the entire Africa-Eurasia boundary is one of rotation. In fact, the Africa-Eurasia Euler Pole is almost exactly due south of the Terceira bend, approximately 1,780 km (1,105 miles) south of the plate boundary.

Fact: There is a strongly-supported hypothesis that Africa once nestled against South America and that the two land masses broke apart approximately 200 Mya.

Discussion: How can we treat a hypothesis as fact? Certainly, this weakens any argument, but all "laws" of science are subject to amendment, revision, or outright repeal. For all intents and purposes, such a "working hypothesis" acts as a surrogate law. Science may not admit as much, but it is quite common. When a preponderance of data suggests that an assertion is true, we can treat that assertion as true for the purposes of investigating other more minor hypotheses. Here we deal with relative truths, not absolutes. For every Newton there may come some day an Einstein to say, "You almost had it right." And Newton's laws of motion work well up until one reaches near-light velocities. Then, Einstein's relativity takes over.

Fact: That same strongly-supported hypothesis warrants that Africa moved northward toward the Eurasia, closing up what would one day become the Mediterranean.

Premise: The northward movement of the Africa plate included subduction (plate convergence) along the Gloria Fracture Zone.

Discussion: At this point, the ocean floor crust that was to become the Azores underwater plateau did not exist as such. That future crust was still in the Earth's mantle awaiting its birth at the mid-Atlantic ridge (spreading center).

Fact: Most mountains are found near tectonic plate boundaries, formed from the actions of subduction, friction from impediments, and the resultant crustal folding.

Premise: The current damaged state of the region from Gibraltar to the Azores was caused by crustal folding and subsequent tectonic collapse.

Premise: Atlantic Ocean subduction of the Africa under the Eurasia met with sufficient impediment to cause complete blockage at one point on the Africa-Eurasia boundary.

Discussion: Complete blockage from impediments to subduction would have converted all northward motion of the Africa plate with regard to the Eurasia into crustal folding locally, i.e. mountain building. This may have started with the deflection of the plate boundary toward the Northwest, perhaps as much as 60 Mya. However, subduction would have continued farther east of the area of damage.

Premise: This impediment to subduction resulted in sufficient mountain building to create an island in the middle of the North Atlantic east of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Premise: Circa 36 Mya (date given by Searle, 1980, for the start of the Terceira Ridge), northward movement of the Africa against the impediment to subduction could no longer proceed and mountain building ceased, deflecting motion around the area of blockage. This initiated the current pattern of rotation and established the current location of the Africa-Eurasia Euler Pole.

Premise: Deflected movement of the Africa plate meant decreased support for the folded crust in this region, opening the door for eventual subsidence.

Fact: Approximately 5.9 Mya to 5.2 Mya, the Strait of Gibraltar was blocked, leading to the dessication of the Med and to the Messinian Salinity Crisis.

Premise: Continued subduction adjacent to the area of crustal folding led to boundary damage creeping along the boundary toward Gibraltar.

Discussion: This is like a paper jam in a printer. Crumpling of paper at the point of obstruction leads to crumpling more distant from that point of obstruction, which in turn becomes a new point of obstruction.

Premise: The blockage at the Strait of Gibraltar was the result of 30 million years of boundary damage creep.

Fact: Plato states that Atlantis contained many elephants.

Premise: Elephants from Africa and/or Eurasia merely walked across the Atlantis peninsula while Gibraltar was blocked.

Premise: The subsidence of the Atlantis landmass could have started as early as the initiation of plate rotation around the current Africa-Eurasia Euler Pole.

Premise: The reopening of the Strait of Gibraltar was the result of this ongoing weakening of this raised sea floor and from the continued rotation of the Africa around the current Africa-Eurasia Euler Pole.

Fact: North Africa suffered from faulting and volcanism circa 35 Mya.

Fact: The Africa plate suffered a major fracture and the loss of what is now the Arabia Plate circa 30 - 23 Mya.

Fact: The Great Rift Valley of East Africa is an incomplete spreading center that is in the process of creating another tectonic plate (currently the Somalia Sub-plate).

Premise: The rotation of the Africa plate around the current Euler Pole was sufficient change in plate motion to cause the stresses observed in North Africa and along the Great Rift Valley, and these resulted from the impediment to subduction at the uplifted sea floor (Atlantis).

Fact: Something broke the freshwater cap on the North Atlantic that had stopped the thermohaline circulation of the world's oceans, and this abruptly ended the Younger Dryas at about 9620 BCE.

Fact: Moderately large volcanic trace was deposited in Greenland 9620.77 BCE.

Fact: The 1989 chart of sea level rise by Fairbanks (Nature magazine) shows a 2-meter drop at the end of the Younger Dryas (9620 BCE).

Discussion: If this 2-meter drop on the graph is a proxy for a real event, then a massive tectonic subsidence likely occurred. The only other realistic way to remove that much water from the world's oceans would be to precipitate out that amount as ice and snow, deposited in the far North or far South. Yet, such abrupt loss could not have been achieved by weather. That process is too slow. The abrupt drop in sea levels worldwide could only have been achieved by the tectonic collapse of a landmass roughly equal in volume to an area the size of Texas and down approximately 1,000 meters (3,280 feet).

Premise: Continued weakening of the uplifted sea floor from Africa plate rotation caused the final subsidence at 9620 BCE.

Conclusion: The creation and subsequent destruction of Atlantis were geologically feasible.

Discussion: We have evidence that the sea floor is anything but smooth across the region that would have been Atlantis. This area is not a smooth abyssal plain. That lack of smoothness may be partially from crustal folding (mountain building) and partially from the disordered collapse of that folded crust (former island). Do we need more proof? You bet we do. We cannot yet prove the past reality of Atlantis, but there is a great body of suggestive evidence in support of it as detailed by the facts above.

Indeed, 2.4 millennia should be enough time for anyone to find something as big as a large island. Yet, how long did it take the Mediterranean civilization to find America? Over 4.5 millennia, and America is two continents. About Atlantis, Mr. Carroll seems to forget that we're not talking about an island. We are talking about a former island that may be as much as 3 kilometers below the top of the ocean. What part of human history had the capability to investigate anything that deep with any degree of thoroughness? Certainly not most of that 2.4 millennia.

This capability existed for perhaps fifty years of recent history at most. So, the 2.4 millennia is a bit meaningless here as an argument. And during all that time (the last five decades), science was prejudiced against the subject of Atlantis. Such prejudice easily blinds scientists. That is regrettable. This kind of blindness kept scientists from the early discoveries of proof for several myths — Troy, Mycenaean Greece, Minoan Crete, Amazon warriors (burial kurgans of Southern Russia), and the real "island" of Ithaca. This kind of blindness tended to cripple North American anthropology with regard to the "Clovis first" dogma.

There are many ways to challenge another's muddy thinking or illogical approach to a subject. Ridicule is perhaps the weakest of those methods. But I feel it also reveals an evil streak in the individual perpetrator that I do not respect.

A person with superior intelligence should never use that intelligence to harm others, even verbally. I don't hold any naïve illusions that Mr. Carroll will change his stripes on this, though he could, if he chose to. He seems to be having too much fun with his mild brand of evil.

As I've said before, there are at least two kinds of skepticism. One kind feeds the ego by putting others down. It is a self-indulgence. I wouldn't deny Mr. Carroll his little fun. I would merely educate others that there is another form of skepticism that favors restraint and humility in the search for truth. Perhaps Mr. Carroll understands the difference between arrogance/ridicule and humility/restraint, but his actions and words seem to show that he favors the former.