- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Once upon a time there was a firm consensus among archeologists that the Clovis people were the first humans in the Americas. Problem was that archeologists here and there found sites indicating human occupation in the Americas before the Clovis people. Something like 97% of archeologists dismissed the new discoveries. The new discoverers were at first ignored, then denounced. One recalled: "It's not fun when people write to your dean and try to get you fired, and then your grad students try to get jobs and they can't get jobs." Peer reviewed science, indeed. But the evidence kept coming, and the new discoverers were vindicated. The consensus collapsed. Science continued.eace
[h=3]When Did Humans Come to the Americas? | Science ... - Smithsonian[/h]www.smithsonianmag.com/.../When-Did-Humans-Come-to-the-America...
By Guy Gugliotta; Illustration by Andy Martin; Smithsonian magazine, February 2013, Subscribe. View More Photos ». $Alt. (Illustration by Andy Martin) ...
So lets see, the Clovis discoveries happened in the 1920's......and 50 years later new discoveries challenged and overturned the idea that Clovis culture was first in the Americas.
Is there a point....other that some in science are human?
Yes yes....my stating that science is of and by humans....is a statement of "smooth marching".I don't think it takes much to see that the point was the petty and vindictive responses the new data got from other scientists, in stark contrast to the butter-smooth march of knowledge you're implying here.
Yes yes....my stating that science is of and by humans....is a statement of "smooth marching".
So lets see, the Clovis discoveries happened in the 1920's......and 50 years later new discoveries challenged and overturned the idea that Clovis culture was first in the Americas.
I know you have the ability to remove portions of statements from their whole and portray them as the whole.No, this is:
I know you have the ability to remove portions of statements from their whole and portray them as the whole.
Really? What portion of your post indicated anything other than that you believe science progressed smoothly? You pointedly dismissed the petty and vindictive responses of other scientists as nothing to be concerned with.
What, then, other than what I said, was the point of your post? Do tell why you felt any need to comment, and to attack the OP, if you agreed with it, as you are now pretending?
Science and especially archaeology is conservative and actually have a lot of peer pressure involved so not to look outside the established consensus. This has its problems, especially in the early years where it was heavily influenced by religion and out right racism.
For example, some archaeologists have theorised that people from Africa travelled to South and Central America... and the evidence of this is around but has largely been dismissed because "how on earth could heathens and near cavemen of Africa travel across the mighty Atlantic"?
But then there is evidence that reed boats could travel across the Atlantic. Or the finding of trace elements in Egyptian mummies of things that only existed in the Americas. Or the fact that statues in Central and South America clearly depicts African like humans.
Never the less, the official idea is that humans did not travel from Africa to South and Central America before the good Christian Columbus discovered the Americas. And the fact that the Vikings were in North America long before Columbus was at first dismissed and when proved, then it was ignored by the main stream historical societies.... again the Vikings were heathens.. so no way could they do what they did.
Sadly historians and archaeologists are substitutable to political bull**** like everything else in society... instead of dealing in facts and accepting that their theories can be disproved and changed based on those facts.
I think I made it clear in the portion you decided to delete when you quoted me the second time.Really? What portion of your post indicated anything other than that you believe science progressed smoothly?
Harstraw! I never commented on any of the scientists "responses", counselor.You pointedly dismissed the petty and vindictive responses of other scientists as nothing to be concerned with.
What? Such audacity to think that YOU got to the essence of what I said by deleting the point!What, then, other than what I said, was the point of your post?
Jack has a history of relying on SOME science to try to put down OTHER science which does not agree with his agenda. One example being his continued use of "solar activity" to counter CO2 argument on GW.Do tell why you felt any need to comment, and to attack the OP, if you agreed with it, as you are now pretending?
Well, for the unintended irony and hypocrisy contained within them....but then you are going for the attention....you said so yourself.GMST is a particular fan of my posts.:lamo
I think I made it clear in the portion you decided to delete when you quoted me the second time.
Harstraw! I never commented on any of the scientists "responses", counselor.
Is there a point....other that some in science are human?
What? Such audacity to think that YOU got to the essence of what I said by deleting the point! Jack has a history of relying on SOME science to try to put down OTHER science which does not agree with his agenda. One example being his continued use of "solar activity" to counter CO2 argument on GW.
Now we have him again trying to sow seeds of doubt on a school of science (archaeology) by trying to argue that since science has not accepted challenges to some orthodoxy, then it is an imperfect entity. The counter argument is "wow, no kidding....humans have an inherent tendency to hold to orthodoxy and not change instantly in the face of counterfactual argument."
The irony is that, as a (neo)conservative, he should be aware of just deep that goes.
Hold on there counselor, since I said "they are human", did I not acknowledge that some held to their orthodoxy? You want to create the harstraw that I "dismissed" their criticism of the challenging data. I never did. This is just you believing you can make me out to defending the criticism. I wasn't, but you have sunk your teeth into "something" of your own creation.....which is nothing. I understand that orthodoxy exists (and my understanding that it does, that it is part of the human condition is not an endorsement of it), and new evidence will always challenge it....and that goes both ways as it should. But as usually you still ignore my main point......of all people who should relate to the stubbornness of orthodoxy.....are conservatives.Where you dismissed the petty and vindictive responses of other scientists as no big deal? Yeah, I covered that.
Really? Then by this:
You are commenting on what, exactly?
See, you're confirming what I said.
Hold on there counselor, since I said "they are human", did I not acknowledge that some held to their orthodoxy?
Harstraw! I never commented on any of the scientists "responses", counselor.
You want to create the harstraw that I "dismissed" their criticism of the challenging data. I never did.
Is there a point....other that some in science are human?
This is just you believing you can make me out to defending the criticism. I wasn't, but you have sunk your teeth into "something" of your own creation.....which is nothing. I understand that orthodoxy exists (and my understanding that it does, that it is part of the human condition is not an endorsement of it), and new evidence will always challenge it....and that goes both ways as it should. But as usually you still ignore my main point......of all people who should relate to the stubbornness of orthodoxy.....are conservatives.
What? Such audacity to think that YOU got to the essence of what I said by deleting the point! Jack has a history of relying on SOME science to try to put down OTHER science which does not agree with his agenda. One example being his continued use of "solar activity" to counter CO2 argument on GW.
Now we have him again trying to sow seeds of doubt on a school of science (archaeology) by trying to argue that since science has not accepted challenges to some orthodoxy, then it is an imperfect entity. The counter argument is "wow, no kidding....humans have an inherent tendency to hold to orthodoxy and not change instantly in the face of counterfactual argument."
The irony is that, as a (neo)conservative, he should be aware of just deep that goes.
FFS Harstraw, is that it? You have shown that I did comment on the "responses". Wow....hey everyone, the lawyer just scored!!!Funny, I thought you never commented on them at all? In fact, yes, that's what you said:
Emphasis -- "any" -- entirely your own. I'm leaving the juvenile "Harstraw" in because it's so much more fun to have it there when you yourself can't even decide on what you said.
Oh, but you did -- you dismissed it as immaterial:
See, no one's going to believe that you were doing anything else.
This, of course, is if you were commenting on them at all, because you said you never did. But apparently you did, as you now say. Unless you didn't, and that's just another "harstraw." Whichever you think works for you at time, I guess. Heck, it all works for me, because it makes your responses more and more hilarious as this goes on.
Weird, that's not what you said your "main point" was just above:
You said your main point was that Jack tries to deny science. Oh, sure, you added something it being an "irony" somesuchwhatever "conservative" (or is he a neoconservative? You're not clear on that) blah blah blah, but that wasn't your "main point." But then, your inability to know if you commented on the scientist's responses or not (you didn't, except that you did, according to you) indicates you don't know what you say from post to post, so I can't really expect you to even know what you "main point" ever was.
And besides, you've been calling me "Harstraw" and "counselor" throughout this exchange for what you call my presumption of mind-reading, yet you expect a reader to divine this context -- a supposed history of Jack's science-denial -- out of your post (#2)?
One of these days, you might make up your mind what you're actually doing and saying here.
FFS Harstraw, is that it? You have shown that I did comment on the "responses". Wow....hey everyone, the lawyer just scored!!!
BFD.
As if this has any bearing on the points I have made.
Your focus on the insignificant is impressive as usual.
I see, so if a person has more than one point, he has not decided what points he has?You can't decide what points you made. In fact, you went back and forth so many times, you don't even know what you said, so this response is entirely nonsensical.
No, you focused on my supposed " dismissal" of some comments........but where and when this happened is purely a fantasy of yours.Weirdly, that which I "focused on" is what you say was your "point." So . . . your "point" is "insignificant"? I'll buy that, I guess.
I see, so if a person has more than one point, he has not decided what points he has?You can't decide what points you made. In fact, you went back and forth so many times, you don't even know what you said, so this response is entirely nonsensical.
No, you focused on my supposed " dismissal" of some comments........but where and when this happened is purely a fantasy of yours.
And now you're in full-bore babbling inanity, which is where it always goes with you.
I suppose the next tangent you will sink your teeth into will be that since I commented, I was required to comment on all of the responses......and since I did not....then I supposedly "dismissed" those I did not comment upon......amiright, counselor?
So lets see, the Clovis discoveries happened in the 1920's......and 50 years later new discoveries challenged and overturned the idea that Clovis culture was first in the Americas.
Is there a point....other that some in science are human?
Um, adding points.....is not changing them.When he keeps changing what he says, he has not decided, no.
Wait...I admitted i "commented" on them...and gave you a score for it....and somehow I did not decide?You can't even decide if you even said anything about those comments, so you're not exactly in a position to say what's "fantasy."
Psst...inanity...is the process of never making any points but spending pages showing off your shallowness.I will now quote myself from our last exchange, because it's relevant again:
I wouldn't consider radioactive dating/analysis a soft science.that the soft sciences are not as rigorously "scientific" as some may assume?
I wouldn't consider radioactive dating/analysis a soft science.
No doubt..but it is the central discipline that the story revolves around.archaeology encompasses more than that
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?