4 ms·

I really dislike this style of narrative heavy pop sciency stuff. It's incredibly antithetical to the very principle of science (rigorously prove each and every

I really dislike this style of narrative heavy pop sciency stuff. It's incredibly antithetical to the very principle of science (rigorously prove each and every step in an argument, don't rely on narratives, go where the evidence leads you rather than picking and choosing evidence to back up your pre-existing narrative). CGPGrey really is smart enough that he should know better than to fall into this trap, but it can be oh so tempting. The Guns, Germs, and Steel narrative is an interesting one with some intriguing ideas but it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny well. At best it's a theory, at worst it's a story that people tell because it's interesting and not explicitly completely and utterly ruled out by the facts. The overall theory relies on several key ideas, none of which have been validated scientifically. First the idea that there are more "good domesticable" animals in the old world than the new. Second that it's the domestication of animals which leads primarily to higher rates of endemic diseases. This is one of those ideas that has a bit of truthiness to it (since it's very much true for some diseases like the Flu or SARS) but is nowhere near a sufficiently fleshed out nor sufficiently verified theory. Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. Perhaps enough to completely invalidate the rest of the Guns, Germs, and Steel argument, but since the "argument" is presented as a narrative rather than a scientific theory it doesn't even present anything to be falsified in that regard. On the whole, while there are some decent thoughts in there, the overall narrative is bad history and even worse science. And it's really gut wrenching to see this sort of thing gain so much uncritical attention.

BookmarkSaver 11y ago
>Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. What does this even mean? The point about the impact of the disease is that when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so. This has nothing to do with "details of the civilization" and the "casual assumption" is something that is technically untestable but so blatantly obvious that it is basically undeniable.
- TheRealPomax 11y ago
  Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. Good science then rules most of them out based on evidence. And if we can't get that evidence because it's lost in history, then too bad: it'll have to stay unprovable hypotheses. There is no such thing as "basically undeniable" in science; only "unproven" and "backed by so much evidence in specific context as to be considered proven in specific context". And even if it's the latter, it can still be completely wrong outside of that context.
  - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
    The extrapolation you are making here is that historical studies are essentially pointless. For most of history we have a few rock scratchings or a one sentence accounts of major figures doing something. The bar for almost everything accepted as "historical fact" is far below the "blatantly obvious" statement that I threw out there. >Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. If accepting the idea that a 90% population reduction was a pivotal factor in the balance of New/Old World power is simply an "unprovable hypothesis", then sociology might as well be ignored. Maybe instead of latching onto the fact that I used words that are unpleasantly unscientific and pretending that my statement is bunk, you should actually examine the claim that I was making out to be "blatantly obvious". Because it is. Semantics will not change that. Getting high and mighty about what is "good science" or not regarding this claim is just nonsense objections made because you didn't like my wording.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > ... when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so. True. Now: Why did that happen, rather than 90% of the Old World population dying out? Well, because the Old World had nastier illnesses, pre-contact, to pass on to the New World. And why did it have those, without them destroying the Old World? I think that's what InclinedPlane is getting at. For "the details of the civilization itself", you might think about housing, sanitation, diet, proximity of animals, practice of medicine...
reality_czech 11y ago
I think it's absolutely inarguable that the germs from the Old World devastated the New World after first contact. All at once, the New World got malaria, yellow fever, smallpox, the list goes on. Meanwhile, the only disease that we think (but don't know for sure) that the Old World got from the exchange is syphillis, which can only be trasmitted sexually, and is nowhere near as devastating. I also think it's inarguable that people had domesticated more animals in the Old World. The Old World had cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, cats, dogs, falcons, horses, oxen, camels, turkeys, just to name a few. The New World had dogs and llamas... and honestly I'm drawing a blank for more than that. I'm sure there were other ones, but there was nothing equivalent to horses. Whether there were more "good domesticable" animals or not is irrevelant-- we know for a fact that not as many animals were domesticated. I also disagree that domesticable animals are "key" to Diamond's theory. A larger and more dense population can just support more diseases. It's simple mathematics-- if a disease that kills its hosts can't spread before its hosts die, it dies out. It's the same reason why half a pound of uranium might go critical, but a few molecules won't. The reaction (disease) cannot sustain itself without a certain density. This is also the idea behind "herd immunity." Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. You can use as many $10 words as you want, but I'm pretty sure wiping out 90% of the people in any civilization will have a catastrophic effect. Remember that the Black Death in Europe "only" killed 1/3 of the population.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Turkeys are American.
  - reality_czech 11y ago
    Thanks for the correction.

BookmarkSaver 11y ago

>Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. What does this even mean? The point about the impact of the disease is that when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so. This has nothing to do with "details of the civilization" and the "casual assumption" is something that is technically untestable but so blatantly obvious that it is basically undeniable.

TheRealPomax 11y ago
Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. Good science then rules most of them out based on evidence. And if we can't get that evidence because it's lost in history, then too bad: it'll have to stay unprovable hypotheses. There is no such thing as "basically undeniable" in science; only "unproven" and "backed by so much evidence in specific context as to be considered proven in specific context". And even if it's the latter, it can still be completely wrong outside of that context.
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  The extrapolation you are making here is that historical studies are essentially pointless. For most of history we have a few rock scratchings or a one sentence accounts of major figures doing something. The bar for almost everything accepted as "historical fact" is far below the "blatantly obvious" statement that I threw out there. >Good science does not accept "blatantly obvious" as any kind of proof. Reasoning alone just gets you hypotheses. If accepting the idea that a 90% population reduction was a pivotal factor in the balance of New/Old World power is simply an "unprovable hypothesis", then sociology might as well be ignored. Maybe instead of latching onto the fact that I used words that are unpleasantly unscientific and pretending that my statement is bunk, you should actually examine the claim that I was making out to be "blatantly obvious". Because it is. Semantics will not change that. Getting high and mighty about what is "good science" or not regarding this claim is just nonsense objections made because you didn't like my wording.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> ... when the Old World and the New World first contacted each other, something like almost 90% of the New World population died out in the subsequent century or so. True. Now: Why did that happen, rather than 90% of the Old World population dying out? Well, because the Old World had nastier illnesses, pre-contact, to pass on to the New World. And why did it have those, without them destroying the Old World? I think that's what InclinedPlane is getting at. For "the details of the civilization itself", you might think about housing, sanitation, diet, proximity of animals, practice of medicine...

reality_czech 11y ago

I think it's absolutely inarguable that the germs from the Old World devastated the New World after first contact. All at once, the New World got malaria, yellow fever, smallpox, the list goes on. Meanwhile, the only disease that we think (but don't know for sure) that the Old World got from the exchange is syphillis, which can only be trasmitted sexually, and is nowhere near as devastating. I also think it's inarguable that people had domesticated more animals in the Old World. The Old World had cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, cats, dogs, falcons, horses, oxen, camels, turkeys, just to name a few. The New World had dogs and llamas... and honestly I'm drawing a blank for more than that. I'm sure there were other ones, but there was nothing equivalent to horses. Whether there were more "good domesticable" animals or not is irrevelant-- we know for a fact that not as many animals were domesticated. I also disagree that domesticable animals are "key" to Diamond's theory. A larger and more dense population can just support more diseases. It's simple mathematics-- if a disease that kills its hosts can't spread before its hosts die, it dies out. It's the same reason why half a pound of uranium might go critical, but a few molecules won't. The reaction (disease) cannot sustain itself without a certain density. This is also the idea behind "herd immunity." Third, implying that the impact of a disease on a civilization wide basis has only to do with the disease itself and nothing to do with the details of the civilization itself is a casual assumption of the underlying narrative though it is blatantly false. You can use as many $10 words as you want, but I'm pretty sure wiping out 90% of the people in any civilization will have a catastrophic effect. Remember that the Black Death in Europe "only" killed 1/3 of the population.

MaysonL 11y ago
Turkeys are American.
- reality_czech 11y ago
  Thanks for the correction.