3 ms·

"The channel does not focus on historically accurate building techniques. It does not offer explanatory tutorials." As far as i can see from his blog[0] and Yo

"The channel does not focus on historically accurate building techniques. It does not offer explanatory tutorials." As far as i can see from his blog[0] and YouTube channel[1] he does extensive research on the matter, logs and explains everything down the the centimeter. I see that the author comes from an Literature background, but in my opinion the author of this article should have done better research on Primitive Technology's author (and other great examples, Dick Proenneke[2] comes to mind first) and his methods, and not just stop at the FAQ in the About section of his channel. I would also have liked a quick mention about how this extremely popular YouTube channel doesn't have advertisement. [0](https://primitivetechnology.wordpress.com/ https://primitivetechnology.wordpress.com/) [1](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA) [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke)

samirillian 9y ago
I couldn't get past the first couple of sentences without a real eyebrow-raise: "Primitive Technology: an oxymoron, perhaps a logical impossibility" How exactly is this an oxymoron?
- jerf 9y ago
  "Technology" implies some sort of advancement, whereas primitive denies it. It's fair to point out it has more than a whiff of oxymoron about it in the natural reading. But you might prefer "paradox"; an apparent contradiction. Like many other paradoxes, this paradox resolves itself once you learn more. But certainly at first there seems to be a contradiction in play, again, with the natural reading of the terms.
  - hervature 9y ago
    I think most definition of technology don't have "advancement" in it. It literally means the "science of craftmanship". So primitive technology is neither an oxymoron nor a paradox. Certainly, not a logical impossibility.
    - jerf 9y ago
      I was and am referring to the common understanding of the term, not a particular dictionary definition. If I say "envision an example of technology" and the first thing that leaps to your mind is a stone wheel, a club, or a campfire, rather than a syringe, computer, space ship, robot, car, or similar, fair enough, for you it's not oxymoronic/paradoxical, but I'd say that puts you in the minority.

samirillian 9y ago

I couldn't get past the first couple of sentences without a real eyebrow-raise: "Primitive Technology: an oxymoron, perhaps a logical impossibility" How exactly is this an oxymoron?

jerf 9y ago
"Technology" implies some sort of advancement, whereas primitive denies it. It's fair to point out it has more than a whiff of oxymoron about it in the natural reading. But you might prefer "paradox"; an apparent contradiction. Like many other paradoxes, this paradox resolves itself once you learn more. But certainly at first there seems to be a contradiction in play, again, with the natural reading of the terms.
- hervature 9y ago
  I think most definition of technology don't have "advancement" in it. It literally means the "science of craftmanship". So primitive technology is neither an oxymoron nor a paradox. Certainly, not a logical impossibility.
  - jerf 9y ago
    I was and am referring to the common understanding of the term, not a particular dictionary definition. If I say "envision an example of technology" and the first thing that leaps to your mind is a stone wheel, a club, or a campfire, rather than a syringe, computer, space ship, robot, car, or similar, fair enough, for you it's not oxymoronic/paradoxical, but I'd say that puts you in the minority.