4 ms·

Actually can we not debate it, and stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry?

alehul 9y ago
I think it's quite plausible and very interesting to debate. With that said, there is clearly interest at a political level, as stated by the author of this article. There's tons of research in the world which has been funded by political interests, however, and it's still valuable once you discount biases as this author has done.
mc32 9y ago
Who cares if they wanna debate it. It's something that happened a thousand years ago. If it were flipped, I'm sure people would be up to debating it. In either case what we find out about people a thousand years ago is neat, but does not affect the dead. If this were about dinosaurs, I'm pretty sure we'd all be okay with reexamining the interpretations, so why care here? If we learn something great. At least DNA is still considered useful in determining gender, which in some areas of academia seems up for debate.
- mbillie1 9y ago
  I meant more, "can we not debate it here," as in on HN. These discussions always end up going nowhere immediately.
jrs95 9y ago
I think as long as people are going to make stuff up and misinterpret 'evidence' intentionally as political propaganda, we probably need to continue debating it.
- AckSyn 9y ago
  It's partially what I've been thinking. Someone discovers a female burial complete with sword, etc. and everyone practically goes off the rails and the SJW crowd spins their own theories and lies into the discourse. The scientists, historians, and others who would do all the digging into the reasons and details haven't even had enough time to figure this stuff out yet and ... yup ... there goes another article on how all our history was wrong and that such-and-such actually happened. People do this for political and social reasons to push a narrative. I don't see why someone shouldn't call them out on their bs and lies, debunking them so we can get back to the truth.
mnarayan01 9y ago
> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry? While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing in the linked article strikes me as "pedantry".
- astrodust 9y ago
  It's splitting hairs on an atomic level.
- ajross 9y ago
  What parts don't? The entire article is one technical digression after another, aimed solely to discredit the paper and its authors, without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. That's, like, the textbook definition of "pedantry".
  - Someone 9y ago
    ""Pedantry: excessive concern with minor details and rules." The article could do without the (almost) personal attacks, but it (also) discredits the results and the logic in the paper that leads to the results. I don't think the details it focuses on (most importantly that the skeletons may have been mixed up and that we don't know what burial items mean) to do the discrediting are minor, nor do I think the concern with it is excessive.
  - mnarayan01 9y ago
    The linked article raises four concerns: 1. It's not clear whether the skeleton goes with the grave -- The excavation was in the 19th century and there are various methodological concerns. 2. It's not clear that the graveyard was for "warriors" -- The number of bodies with serious injuries is low. 3. It's not clear that the grave was for someone of "high rank", particularly in as much as "high rank" modifies "warrior". 4. The paper gives short shrift to the work of language/text specialists. Notable in light of (2) and (3) above. How much each of these things is a problem is going to depend on deep factual information, but they are not indicative of "excessive concern with minor details and rules".

I think it's quite plausible and very interesting to debate. With that said, there is clearly interest at a political level, as stated by the author of this article. There's tons of research in the world which has been funded by political interests, however, and it's still valuable once you discount biases as this author has done.

mc32 9y ago

Who cares if they wanna debate it. It's something that happened a thousand years ago. If it were flipped, I'm sure people would be up to debating it. In either case what we find out about people a thousand years ago is neat, but does not affect the dead. If this were about dinosaurs, I'm pretty sure we'd all be okay with reexamining the interpretations, so why care here? If we learn something great. At least DNA is still considered useful in determining gender, which in some areas of academia seems up for debate.

mbillie1 9y ago
I meant more, "can we not debate it here," as in on HN. These discussions always end up going nowhere immediately.

jrs95 9y ago

I think as long as people are going to make stuff up and misinterpret 'evidence' intentionally as political propaganda, we probably need to continue debating it.

AckSyn 9y ago
It's partially what I've been thinking. Someone discovers a female burial complete with sword, etc. and everyone practically goes off the rails and the SJW crowd spins their own theories and lies into the discourse. The scientists, historians, and others who would do all the digging into the reasons and details haven't even had enough time to figure this stuff out yet and ... yup ... there goes another article on how all our history was wrong and that such-and-such actually happened. People do this for political and social reasons to push a narrative. I don't see why someone shouldn't call them out on their bs and lies, debunking them so we can get back to the truth.

mnarayan01 9y ago

> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry? While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing in the linked article strikes me as "pedantry".

astrodust 9y ago
It's splitting hairs on an atomic level.
ajross 9y ago
What parts don't? The entire article is one technical digression after another, aimed solely to discredit the paper and its authors, without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. That's, like, the textbook definition of "pedantry".
- Someone 9y ago
  ""Pedantry: excessive concern with minor details and rules." The article could do without the (almost) personal attacks, but it (also) discredits the results and the logic in the paper that leads to the results. I don't think the details it focuses on (most importantly that the skeletons may have been mixed up and that we don't know what burial items mean) to do the discrediting are minor, nor do I think the concern with it is excessive.
- mnarayan01 9y ago
  The linked article raises four concerns: 1. It's not clear whether the skeleton goes with the grave -- The excavation was in the 19th century and there are various methodological concerns. 2. It's not clear that the graveyard was for "warriors" -- The number of bodies with serious injuries is low. 3. It's not clear that the grave was for someone of "high rank", particularly in as much as "high rank" modifies "warrior". 4. The paper gives short shrift to the work of language/text specialists. Notable in light of (2) and (3) above. How much each of these things is a problem is going to depend on deep factual information, but they are not indicative of "excessive concern with minor details and rules".