Talk:Masaaki Kimura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pseudoscience or not[edit]

I can show Japanese references which are regarded as established theories for Yamataikoku and earthquake prediction arguments, but there is even no mention to his name in these books, because his works are so far away from mainstream researchers'. As for so-called "Yonaguni Monument", he only published following two articles in scientific journals.

  • Masaaki Kimura et.al.（2001） RESEARCH FOR SUBMARINE RUINS OFF YONAGUNI, JAPAN. Bull.Fac.Sci.,Univ.Ryukyus（琉球大学理学部紀要）, no.72, p.49-72.
  • 「総特集 沖縄の海底遺跡（？）と地殻変動」, 月刊地球, 2000年２月号

Both of the journals have no peer review system. In the university bulletin article, he used a Graham Hancock's book as a reference. You can also check one of his book's title 「海底宮殿 沈んだ琉球古陸と"失われたムー大陸"」, which is translated as "Seabed Palace: Submerged Ryukyu Old Land and the Lost Continent of Mu". Do you still think he is a respectable researcher?

Asato Shijun (director of the Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center) and Hara Toshio (Kobe University) strongly criticize Kimura's work. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The rest of the academic society just ignored him. --Cervelo21 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Kimura's works are *controversial*, and we can say that much in the article. But whether he is *respectable* or not is a POV statement, and as such is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moreover, a scientist does not become "non-respectable" just because he believes (and defends) a impopular or implausible view. History is full of examples of scientists which were ignored or ridiculed by their peers for decades, and then proved right in the end. (Check the history of plate tectonics, for example.) History also has many examples of very respectable and famous scientists who strenuously defended totally bogus theories, to their deaths. Besides, while I cannot judge Kimura's work as a geologist, I cannot find anything blatantly wrong with his archaeological theories; so the label of "pseudoscience" is quite unwarranted. I have seen no evidence that he may be deliberately trying to deceive or mislead his readers, as did, say, Erich von Däniken, George Adamski, William Frederick Koch, and James Churchward. One may find his theories extremely unlikely, but probabilities are not objective facts -- only subjective measures of faith. In any case, whatever one's opinion on Kimura's work, one must respect the man. Al the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masaaki Kimura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masaaki_Kimura&oldid=1203293571"