3 ms·

>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 civi

>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...
InclinedPlane 11y ago
If you get cholera you'll probably be ok. Because you have easy access to food, water, and other sources of hydration as well as good sanitary facilities (read: modern toilets). You'll take time off work, you'll spend a while being miserable in bed or on the couch, you'll drink a lot of liquids, and then you'll get better. Worst case you'll feel so bad you need to ask a friend to take you to the hospital, or call an ambulance, and then you'll get IV fluids and you'll still be ok. Less than 1% of cholera cases involve fatalities when people have access to modern treatment options. Does that mean that the fatality rate of cholera is less than 1%? Not at all, in situations where cholera is left untreated, in areas without access to clean water, modern sanitation facilities, and medical facilities the fatality rate is about 50-60%. That's true of many other diseases as well, from the Flu to measles to smallpox. The spread of disease, it's lethality, and it's impact on society and civilization as a whole are all dependent on factors beyond the characteristics of the disease itself. Just as today the lethality and impact of cholera on society is very different in, say, Canada versus Mozambique. Yes, we know that there was a massive die off of indigenous populations in the Americas (and Australia) that occurred in large part due to diseases spread from the old world. The idea that the mere existence of certain diseases was sufficient to doom those populations to the fate they had is what is called a "theory". Diamond and CGPGrey, and others, treat it as some incontrovertible fact. It relies on the fatality rate and spread of diseases being unconnected with technology, society, culture, etc. And it relies on the assumption that certain death tolls will necessarily lead to civilizational collapse. Both theories have numerous counter-examples.

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...

InclinedPlane 11y ago

If you get cholera you'll probably be ok. Because you have easy access to food, water, and other sources of hydration as well as good sanitary facilities (read: modern toilets). You'll take time off work, you'll spend a while being miserable in bed or on the couch, you'll drink a lot of liquids, and then you'll get better. Worst case you'll feel so bad you need to ask a friend to take you to the hospital, or call an ambulance, and then you'll get IV fluids and you'll still be ok. Less than 1% of cholera cases involve fatalities when people have access to modern treatment options. Does that mean that the fatality rate of cholera is less than 1%? Not at all, in situations where cholera is left untreated, in areas without access to clean water, modern sanitation facilities, and medical facilities the fatality rate is about 50-60%. That's true of many other diseases as well, from the Flu to measles to smallpox. The spread of disease, it's lethality, and it's impact on society and civilization as a whole are all dependent on factors beyond the characteristics of the disease itself. Just as today the lethality and impact of cholera on society is very different in, say, Canada versus Mozambique. Yes, we know that there was a massive die off of indigenous populations in the Americas (and Australia) that occurred in large part due to diseases spread from the old world. The idea that the mere existence of certain diseases was sufficient to doom those populations to the fate they had is what is called a "theory". Diamond and CGPGrey, and others, treat it as some incontrovertible fact. It relies on the fatality rate and spread of diseases being unconnected with technology, society, culture, etc. And it relies on the assumption that certain death tolls will necessarily lead to civilizational collapse. Both theories have numerous counter-examples.