Another objection to the New Criticism is that it is thought to aim at making criticism scientific, or at least “bringing literary study to a condition rivaling that of science.”  René Wellek , however, points out the erroneous nature of this criticism by noting that a number of the New Critics outlined their theoretical aesthetics in stark contrast to the "objectivity" of the sciences (although Ransom, in his essay "Criticism, Inc." did advocate that "criticism must become more scientific, or precise and systematic").  
Needless to say, the majority of scientific community considers the entire Fomenko’s work to be pseudoscience, although it has a number of followers. In my opinion, what it reminds me most is one giant, elaborate hoax, for it is way too eccentric to be treated seriously. If everything before certain date is a reflection of later events, what to do with objects from that period that do not fit into any later time? What about written sources? Were they all falsified by some immeasurably powerful organization that had enough time and effort to spare to write and distribute them, destroying everything that doesn’t fit?