The Collapse of an Archeological Consensus

[American]

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.

Well there's a theory that the land masses once together and that the Americas have been sliding westward....so why couldn't someone have crossed. Hey, but I saw it on TV. :mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Well there's a theory that the land masses once together and that the Americas have been sliding westward....so why couldn't someone have crossed. Hey, but I saw it on TV. :mrgreen:

You speak of Continental Drift or, alternatively, Sea Floor Spreading, which is now generally accepted as true. It doesn't do much for the discussion of migration to the Americas, however, because the time scales are so different. Hundreds of millions of years for the continents vs thousands or tens of thousands for human migration.eace

 

[American]

You speak of Continental Drift or, alternatively, Sea Floor Spreading, which is now generally accepted as true. It doesn't do much for the discussion of migration to the Americas, however, because the time scales are so different. Hundreds of millions of years for the continents vs thousands or tens of thousands for human migration.eace

You are correct. :doh

 

[Jack Hays]

You are correct. :doh

I am but a humble servant of the data.eace

 

[PeteEU]

Well there's a theory that the land masses once together and that the Americas have been sliding westward....so why couldn't someone have crossed. Hey, but I saw it on TV. :mrgreen:

Actually that is far more than a theory.. it is pretty much a fact. Problem with your theory is that this mass continent was millions of years go, and there was no humans around at the time..

 

[American]

Actually that is far more than a theory.. it is pretty much a fact. Problem with your theory is that this mass continent was millions of years go, and there was no humans around at the time..

We already established that...you're a million years behind.

 

[Threegoofs]

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) ...

You've got it wrong again, Jack.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When pre-Clovis evidence was found, it was considered very skeptically because it contradicted everything known to that time. As more and more evidence came in, and as predictions became true about finding pre-Clovis artifacts in places where pre-Clovis people were expected to be, there was a gradual consensus built up over a period of years that these findigs were real and multiple sources of evidence confirmed it. As that evidence came in, it turned most of the scientists opinions around. Some were entrenched in their beliefs till the end, I'm sure, but very few.

This has direct parallels to the AGW issue. The proposal was considered decades ago - mid century. Careful observations and predictions have been made, and by the 80s, it was a pretty solid concept with lots of data behind it. As a few more decades went by, the predictions of warming turned out to be true, and the effects of the warming ecologically also were noticed. So today we have 97% of scientists who study this stuff absolutely convinced its real, because THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS SO. The evidence has turned out to be extraordinary, after decades of scrutiny.

Nutty alternate theories you float constantly are common and the evidence is sparse, and they almost always get shot down. Thats how science works. Maybe CO2 is not warming the earth... but the evidence is clear that it is, and an extraordinary claim that AGW isnt real will require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Jack Hays]

You've got it wrong again, Jack.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When pre-Clovis evidence was found, it was considered very skeptically because it contradicted everything known to that time. As more and more evidence came in, and as predictions became true about finding pre-Clovis artifacts in places where pre-Clovis people were expected to be, there was a gradual consensus built up over a period of years that these findigs were real and multiple sources of evidence confirmed it. As that evidence came in, it turned most of the scientists opinions around. Some were entrenched in their beliefs till the end, I'm sure, but very few.

This has direct parallels to the AGW issue. The proposal was considered decades ago - mid century. Careful observations and predictions have been made, and by the 80s, it was a pretty solid concept with lots of data behind it. As a few more decades went by, the predictions of warming turned out to be true, and the effects of the warming ecologically also were noticed. So today we have 97% of scientists who study this stuff absolutely convinced its real, because THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS SO. The evidence has turned out to be extraordinary, after decades of scrutiny.

Nutty alternate theories you float constantly are common and the evidence is sparse, and they almost always get shot down. Thats how science works. Maybe CO2 is not warming the earth... but the evidence is clear that it is, and an extraordinary claim that AGW isnt real will require extraordinary evidence.

What a pathetic whitewash. People were threatened.eace

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm unclear about Jack's agenda here, but I think it is to somehow undermine the validity of science, which is ironic since the article shows exactly how the scientific method is able to overcome entrenched ideas and biased by the process of new discoveries, experiments and peer review publication.

Isn't this ultimately how science is supposed to work?

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm unclear about Jack's agenda here, but I think it is to somehow undermine the validity of science, which is ironic since the article shows exactly how the scientific method is able to overcome entrenched ideas and biased by the process of new discoveries, experiments and peer review publication.

Isn't this ultimately how science is supposed to work?

Yes, it is. In all its glory and occasional nastiness. Just like other human endeavors.

 

[code1211]

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?

Exactly what percent of "those in science" are claiming to be human?

 

[code1211]

I wouldn't consider radioactive dating/analysis a soft science.

This particular method has produced varying outcomes as it has evolved.

There is nothing about it today that suggests it won't continue to evolve.

 

[Oftencold]

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 there is a point. It just sailed over your head.

 

[Oftencold]

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) ...

I find it amusing that so often in classrooms and in documentaries, the pettiness of the "scientific" community is almost always presented as something that was long ago overcome.

 

[code1211]

Yes, it is. In all its glory and occasional nastiness. Just like other human endeavors.

All areas of science become more accurate as they "age".

Any young science is fraught with uncertainty and subject to frequent and dramatic revision as more and wiser minds are brought to bear on the issues involved.

A hermit like Newton or an industrialist genius like Edison are less common than the run of the mill genius who assesses what has come before and is the right guy in the right place with the right inspiration and preparation to take the next step before passing the baton to the next genius.

It is in this great cooperative procession that we find greatness as a species.

As much a part of the procession is the tedious clinging to the old ideas as is the flamboyant embrace of the new.

 

[Taylor]

And just as quickly and quietly as it appeared, the term "Clovis denier" faded back into the nether from whence it came.

 

[head of joaquin]

Yes, it is. In all its glory and occasional nastiness. Just like other human endeavors.

And you (and the global warmer deniers) noticed this? Is that the lesson?

 

[Jack Hays]

And you (and the global warmer deniers) noticed this? Is that the lesson?

Smithsonian magazine noticed it. I am but a humble servant of the data.eace

 

[code1211]

And you (and the global warmer deniers) noticed this? Is that the lesson?

The lesson is that the easily duped that hear the Truth with a capital T pronounced from those who cannot prove what they say need to dial it back a notch and demand the proof.

You should try this on this topic and others.