4 ms·

Just because you can guess at a simple reason doesn't make it true. Nobody in most of that land ever invented a sundial. Something special happened around the m

Just because you can guess at a simple reason doesn't make it true. Nobody in most of that land ever invented a sundial. Something special happened around the middle east/Europe that spawned all this civilization stuff. How do you know it was simply a matter of more land leading to more chance of civilization appearing there? It might have taken a special type of land combined with a special history of human migration or other factors.

naniwaduni 6y ago
In general the hemisphere with more land likely has more land fulfilling any particular properties that are not inherent to the distinction, and we do know that humans are terrestrial. So ceteris paribus, "might have taken a special type of land combined with a special history of human migration or other factors" is more or less a matter of more land leading to more chance. It is not a comprehensive explanation. It is quite obvious that there are other variables involved! But as a simple explanation it has the advantage of being conceivably predictable without hindsight.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  It's too simple to be interesting. You could obviously divide up the world into some other halves where the half with less land ended up with the sundials and say "even though it predicts the wrong outcome, this explanation is obviously right."
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    That's the point. It is an explanation reduced enough to suggest that the phenomenon is not particularly interesting.
  - IIAOPSW 6y ago
    Other arbitrary divisions don't have the sundial property that north and south have.
naasking 6y ago
> How do you know it was simply a matter of more land leading to more chance of civilization appearing there? Human brains are energy intensive. More land means higher likelihood of arable land, more livestock and so better nutrition. It also makes your land more valuable to invaders, which leads to people organising to protect their land, and innovating weaponry, tactics, etc. Certainly it might have taken some special circumstances like you said, but when there are perfectly plausible reasons suggesting the contrary, there seems little reason to give speculative possibilities much attention until there's evidence.

naniwaduni 6y ago

In general the hemisphere with more land likely has more land fulfilling any particular properties that are not inherent to the distinction, and we do know that humans are terrestrial. So ceteris paribus, "might have taken a special type of land combined with a special history of human migration or other factors" is more or less a matter of more land leading to more chance. It is not a comprehensive explanation. It is quite obvious that there are other variables involved! But as a simple explanation it has the advantage of being conceivably predictable without hindsight.

lopmotr 6y ago
It's too simple to be interesting. You could obviously divide up the world into some other halves where the half with less land ended up with the sundials and say "even though it predicts the wrong outcome, this explanation is obviously right."
- naniwaduni 6y ago
  That's the point. It is an explanation reduced enough to suggest that the phenomenon is not particularly interesting.
- IIAOPSW 6y ago
  Other arbitrary divisions don't have the sundial property that north and south have.

naasking 6y ago

> How do you know it was simply a matter of more land leading to more chance of civilization appearing there? Human brains are energy intensive. More land means higher likelihood of arable land, more livestock and so better nutrition. It also makes your land more valuable to invaders, which leads to people organising to protect their land, and innovating weaponry, tactics, etc. Certainly it might have taken some special circumstances like you said, but when there are perfectly plausible reasons suggesting the contrary, there seems little reason to give speculative possibilities much attention until there's evidence.