3 ms·

Reading pop-archaeology online (mainstream articles, not journals), I find they frequently seem to overreach in what can be inferred by some small find or, just

by steve19 11y ago

Reading pop-archaeology online (mainstream articles, not journals), I find they frequently seem to overreach in what can be inferred by some small find or, just as often, what they did not find at some small site. Find one badly preserved jawbone of a humanoid and immediately we have a new species, without consideration that it might be deformed, juvenile, or from a population with unusual genetics [0] [1] (edit: see Pygmy peoples for example of Homo sapiens sapiens with unusual genetics [2] [3]) All to often they jump on what is not present in one place at one time and make wild assumptions. No fish at one refuse pit of one settlement could be explained by many different things and might not apply to a wider population. Maybe I am just overly skeptical .... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#Pathological_hypotheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#Pathological... [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34192447 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples#/media/File:African_Pigmies_CNE-v1-p58-B.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples#/media/File:Afri...

jamiesonbecker 11y ago
> Maybe I am just overly skeptical .... Or, maybe they were not. Confirmation bias runs rampant.
douche 11y ago
I love dinosaurs and prehistoric beasts, but that's pretty much the way I feel about paleontology. All too often you'll read some science-y piece about some fantastic new insight- a new species, animal X did Y with regards to raising its young, etc. Then you go through a couple of layers of redirects to see the actual information, and find that the new species is classified on the basis of a partial skeleton, or just a handful of bones, or some incredibly fragmentary DNA extracted and compared from two poorly preserved specimens. 10000 years from now, our descendants will be digging through our garbage dumps and trying to find significance from the substantial deposits of shiny metallic plastic jewelry etched with the obscure glyphs "AOL" on one side.

by steve19 11y ago

jamiesonbecker 11y ago

> Maybe I am just overly skeptical .... Or, maybe they were not. Confirmation bias runs rampant.

douche 11y ago

I love dinosaurs and prehistoric beasts, but that's pretty much the way I feel about paleontology. All too often you'll read some science-y piece about some fantastic new insight- a new species, animal X did Y with regards to raising its young, etc. Then you go through a couple of layers of redirects to see the actual information, and find that the new species is classified on the basis of a partial skeleton, or just a handful of bones, or some incredibly fragmentary DNA extracted and compared from two poorly preserved specimens. 10000 years from now, our descendants will be digging through our garbage dumps and trying to find significance from the substantial deposits of shiny metallic plastic jewelry etched with the obscure glyphs "AOL" on one side.