Conflicting theories can exist in any science or discipline. The geocentric view of Johannes Kepler, Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei conflicted with the dogmas of the papacy and those of the mainstrem scholars in their times. Once many scientists and thinkers claimed that the speed of the first automobile would kill the passengers, and Man will never walk on the moon.

The human sciences are the most favourable environment for the genesis of conflicting theories. Frequently two fierce camps can be distinguished in basic issues of anthropology, ancient history, Biblical studies, evolution or linguistics. Usually one side condemns the theories of the other side as unscholarly and unscientific. The mere mention of these words is sometimes enough to get a final verdict; the advantages or the good logic in the opposing theory does not need to be examined scientifically.

Some examples for condemned views in the human sciences, labelled as unscientific:

:1) The history and the sinking of an island as reported by Plato is probably true. Its location can be determined by geologists. Plato never claimed that a whole continent had disappeared. He wrote that a large island in front of another continent, to the west of the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar), was demolished by cataclysmic events. The Bahamas region contains the remnants of an island with Plato's dimensions. Its plain was once surrounded by steep montain ranges that have been found under the sea.
:2) The earliest human civilizations had contacts with a common cradle that was eradicated by a cataclysmic flood.
:3) There were pre-Columbian cultural, ethnic and linguistic ties from several crossings of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
:4) Old and new archaeological proofs show that the Vikings, led by Leif Ericsson, (re)discovered America for the Europeans around 992 C.E.
:5) The Trojan War was historic and Troy's burning can be dated astronomically at 1182 BCE. The Iliad and the Odyssey contain facts deriving from orally transmitted tradition and written records.
:6) As the numbers and regnal years of the ancient Jewish records, including the Old testament, are correct, the Bible is the most reliable source for understanding the history and chronology of the near East.
:7) Most of the Israelites once lived in Egypt, and the Exodus is historical. The "standing" of the sun and the moon in Joshua 10 provides an exact and unique astronomical dating for his wars by a pair of identified eclipses. The Babylonian captivity lasted exactly 70 years, and the Jewish records are not false.
:8) Romulus and Remus were historical persons. Their lives can be dated by three solar eclipses, one of which fixes Rome's foundation at 745 BCE.
:9) Man was created by God. Even if a seven-day creation seems unlikely, the creation of certain plants (such as corn in America) as staple food for a tribe meant their actual "creation" and survival.
:10) Intelligent life can exist on an endless number of planets. The Universe is endless and even 1% of endless is endless.
:11) Intelligent visitors may have visited our planet in ancient times. We do not have any proof they ever left Earth and abandoned us. We do not know about the destruction of their universal dominions either.
:12) Our remote ancestors tried to explain the world and its history to their descendants, and in general did their best to tell the truth. We have departed from Nature and God, and live in an artificial world of half-truths. Therefore, we have lost the ability to understand the clear logic of our ancestors and separate lies from the truth.
:13) Most of the oldest myths are recollections of cosmic and historic events. The primitive nature of our ancestors' languages caused difficulties in explaining the original events. The subsequent distortions oven many generations produced some misconceptions and fanciful cosmogonical views.
:14) All languages on Earth must be evaluated globally and not regionally. Rogid limits do not exist between the continents. There is no maximum distance given between the speakers of any two languages. A similarity as low as 1-8% in their vocabularies may mean early contacts between their ancestors, and those are not by chance at all. The 8% threshold in the lexicostatistics is arbitrary.
:15) The structure of languages developed later than their elements. The sequence of the words cannot be more archaic than the basic words themselves. Many languages, like Chinese, do not have a morphology. The complicated grammatical rules of many modern languages are only a few centuries old, artificially created by literary authorities. Lexicostatistics could be important if long list of properly selected basic words are used.
:16) The Romance languages are not simply descendants of the Latin spoken by the Roman conquerors. There were some civilized tribes in most European countries, and their ancestors had a common cradle (Troy, etc.) with that of the nation of Aeneas, ancestor of the Romans.
:17) The urge to classify languages quickly is unscholarly. A mixed language, like English, cannot be put in a single box. The first step should be the reconstruction of the ancient dialects. Once the dialects were separate languages that have melted over the millenia into an alloy.
:18) Ancient Egyptian had dialects that can be well compared with different European languages, proving their ancient common roots and early contacts.
:19) The story of Robinson Crusoe is not a novel but a true autobiography, only edited by Defoe as he always denied its authorship.
:20) The language mistakenly or conveniently called Old English was the language of the Saxons, widely spoken only in Essex, Wessex and Sussex. When this area (south of the Thames) dominated, the real English population in Mercia and the Midlands used it temporarily in documents as the lingua franca. Therefore, documents in real Old English have not survived. Practically all documents written in that age have originated from the Saxonian area that had no English population, so the official misnomer "Old English" should be called "Old Insular Saxon." About 1300, the real English became widely used and the misnomer gradually died out. The strange claim of some linguists that Old English has lost 85% of its words (Baugh-Cable, 1994: 49-53) is a misinterpretation. The extrapolated and unreliable conclusion is the existence of incredibly strong forces causing quick revolutionary changes that is applicable to any language, similarly to the theory of Darwinism.