3 ms·

Being technically visible to the naked eye does not mean they are easily discernable. It's like how the Galilean moons are technically visible to the naked eye,

Being technically visible to the naked eye does not mean they are easily discernable. It's like how the Galilean moons are technically visible to the naked eye, but Jupiter's overwhelming brightness makes them nigh on impossible to see except in specific circumstances.

lolinder 6y ago
Right, but that they are ever visible to anyone means that the story could just as easily be inspired by the rarely-seen 7th sister, rather than the last-seen-100k-years-ago 7th sister.
- dd_roger 6y ago
  This is a much more likely explanation but in all non-scientific accademic fields it's usually more important to come up with a narrative that's appealing to the general public or the political class than with an accurate narrative. Hence the explanation that makes the most sense but is less "Wow"-inducing will be swept under the rug. There are plenty of fields where we entertain "mysteries" that have perfectly rational explanations but settling the question once and for all with a rational argument would dry up the funding stream for accademicians and could have other undesirable consequences on some countries' political narrative.
  - posterboy 6y ago
    one would like to think the most accurate story was awesome-most precisely because of its accuracy. IMHO you are merely complaining that it isn't precise enough to convince you, though it couldn't be improved much without written accounts? And then it a sense of incredulity is showing, it's unimaginable, 100,000 kya is unimaginable, as if the world was fashioned in the mesolithic.
- posterboy 6y ago
  A nother comment mentions indigenous Australians. Who, if I remember correctly, are estimated to have settled about 50kya. There are later intrusions into the peninsula, as it were back then. Oceania was settled even later by boat. The language divide in Australia is overwhelmingly that of earlier indians (if you'll excuse the pun, the land bridge was connected to the Indian subcontinent), with other language families mostly limited to the north end This I think might strengthen the argument significantly.
  - Keysh 6y ago
    The land bridge connected Australia to New Guinea and the eastern parts of Indonesia, not to India. No one has any idea what the precise relation of Australian languages to any other set of human languages is.

lolinder 6y ago

Right, but that they are ever visible to anyone means that the story could just as easily be inspired by the rarely-seen 7th sister, rather than the last-seen-100k-years-ago 7th sister.

dd_roger 6y ago
This is a much more likely explanation but in all non-scientific accademic fields it's usually more important to come up with a narrative that's appealing to the general public or the political class than with an accurate narrative. Hence the explanation that makes the most sense but is less "Wow"-inducing will be swept under the rug. There are plenty of fields where we entertain "mysteries" that have perfectly rational explanations but settling the question once and for all with a rational argument would dry up the funding stream for accademicians and could have other undesirable consequences on some countries' political narrative.
- posterboy 6y ago
  one would like to think the most accurate story was awesome-most precisely because of its accuracy. IMHO you are merely complaining that it isn't precise enough to convince you, though it couldn't be improved much without written accounts? And then it a sense of incredulity is showing, it's unimaginable, 100,000 kya is unimaginable, as if the world was fashioned in the mesolithic.
posterboy 6y ago
A nother comment mentions indigenous Australians. Who, if I remember correctly, are estimated to have settled about 50kya. There are later intrusions into the peninsula, as it were back then. Oceania was settled even later by boat. The language divide in Australia is overwhelmingly that of earlier indians (if you'll excuse the pun, the land bridge was connected to the Indian subcontinent), with other language families mostly limited to the north end This I think might strengthen the argument significantly.
- Keysh 6y ago
  The land bridge connected Australia to New Guinea and the eastern parts of Indonesia, not to India. No one has any idea what the precise relation of Australian languages to any other set of human languages is.