4 ms·

How do they define collapse? The criterion in the article seems to be "building platforms occasionally" vs "not building platforms anymore"?

NietTim 6y ago
In order to build platforms occasionally you need structure in your society so people can make time to do that, that structure has collapsed
- cheesecracker 6y ago
  I am not entirely convinced. By that definition, all Western civilizations have collapsed because we don't build platforms anymore.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    You're looking at the inverse logic rather than the right one. A => B, does not imply (not A) => (not B). Building platforms is a strong argument there's some organized society (since any such action would require coordination), but the opposite does not have to apply (not having platforms does not mean there isn't a society).
    - cheesecracker 6y ago
      But the logic of the article seems to be the Easter Island inhabitants stopped building platforms, so their civilization must have collapsed. I criticize exactly the faulty logic you describe.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        My reading is a bit different. IMHO, the article is not making the assumption you believe it does. Article's logic: * Article assumes common knowledge of a collapse, and doesn't bother proving that. * So when did the collapse happen? * Well, the inhabitants were building statues during and right after contact. * So probably afterwards. That 'afterwards' could be right after inhabitants stopped building platforms, but it doesn't have to be for the article's logic to hold! If this is not the case (as you claim), than this just pushes the collapse date forwards from the point they stopped building (after contact). It can't push the date backwards (before contact), because they were building stuff previously (article's actual argument). So if the assumption you mentioned doesn't hold, the article's basic argument - collapse after contact, not as a result of ecological catastrophe - becomes more likely.

NietTim 6y ago

In order to build platforms occasionally you need structure in your society so people can make time to do that, that structure has collapsed

cheesecracker 6y ago
I am not entirely convinced. By that definition, all Western civilizations have collapsed because we don't build platforms anymore.
- yyyk 6y ago
  You're looking at the inverse logic rather than the right one. A => B, does not imply (not A) => (not B). Building platforms is a strong argument there's some organized society (since any such action would require coordination), but the opposite does not have to apply (not having platforms does not mean there isn't a society).
  - cheesecracker 6y ago
    But the logic of the article seems to be the Easter Island inhabitants stopped building platforms, so their civilization must have collapsed. I criticize exactly the faulty logic you describe.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      My reading is a bit different. IMHO, the article is not making the assumption you believe it does. Article's logic: * Article assumes common knowledge of a collapse, and doesn't bother proving that. * So when did the collapse happen? * Well, the inhabitants were building statues during and right after contact. * So probably afterwards. That 'afterwards' could be right after inhabitants stopped building platforms, but it doesn't have to be for the article's logic to hold! If this is not the case (as you claim), than this just pushes the collapse date forwards from the point they stopped building (after contact). It can't push the date backwards (before contact), because they were building stuff previously (article's actual argument). So if the assumption you mentioned doesn't hold, the article's basic argument - collapse after contact, not as a result of ecological catastrophe - becomes more likely.