3 ms·
The link was the first google result I got. I havent verified it as a valid source. Having said that, 8000 years ago seems reasonable in the timeline for proto
by jelliclesfarm 6y ago
The link was the first google result I got. I havent verified it as a valid source.
Having said that, 8000 years ago seems reasonable in the timeline for proto writing..maybe even cuneiform or runic etches. They could have independently emerged at the same time in different parts of the world.
What is your definition of pseudo science? Are you using the Popperian criteria?
- eesmith 6y agoWhy did you give it as a source if it doesn't even pass a basic smell test? I answered as I did as a way to show why I don't think it passes the smell test, with the thought that working through the methods might show you how to develop those sorts of critical skills. Another way to think of it is, is your time worth so much more than my time that I'm the one who is supposed to figure out if your citations are meaningful? Because that's a sure sign of a Gish gallop - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop . 8,000 years ago is over 2,000 years before the earliest known "cuneiform or runic etches". I linked you to the relevant Wikipedia page, which lists the Kish tablet from 5,200 years ago as the oldest known written document. Therefore, nothing "seems reasonable" about the claim. I'm fine with using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience as a working definition and find no need to get into the philosophy of science as it seems a distraction from the topics you raised.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agook. thanks.