5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoone 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.