3 ms·

The article linked by the parent is very clear about when things are unknown or suspected but unproven (from real but inconclusive archaeological evidence). In

The article linked by the parent is very clear about when things are unknown or suspected but unproven (from real but inconclusive archaeological evidence). In contrast, it shows that the book in question is completely speculative (not based on any archaeological evidence whatsoever) while presenting itself as unequivocally correct. There is no need to beat around the bush. The linked article fully refutes the original one.

roenxi 5y ago
The book is a work of history. Of course it is completely speculative. The point of historical books is to convince people to read them, typically they have a fairly thick dose of spice and storytelling. Thucydides wasn't trying to bore people. The first "evidence that they may have had the technology to make sewn garments" link [0] looks like some dude ran a model. Now it is certainly possible to claim that as conclusive evidence. But probably only in a debate between historians, I wouldn't bank on it. 50,000 years ago is a long time. There is not a lot of confidence about how things happened, and reality defies mixing generalisation and truth. [0] https://anthropology.net/2009/06/26/neanderthals-dried-fresh-meat-wore-tailored-clothing-energy-study/ https://anthropology.net/2009/06/26/neanderthals-dried-fresh...
- throwanem 5y ago
  Do you mean to construct a defense of the "cannibal rapist Neandertal orcs" idea on the post-factualist basis that, well, there's no actually knowing anything, so we may as well pick whatever just-so story we like? That's a pretty weak defense, is why I'm asking. Almost anything else would be more convincing. So maybe it's worth asking whether you've got anything else to offer.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > there's no actually knowing anything, so we may as well pick whatever just-so story we like? What do you think is going on here? There isn't enough evidence to create an accurate truth, we've got no way of deciding if an accurate truth has been uncovered and it doesn't matter at all anyway. The process by which "truth" is found has a heavy bias towards good storytelling and typically strong political overtones. Do you feel HN is upvoting the story because anyone feels that accurately depicting the neanderthal lifestyle will have profound bearing on the course of the modern world? I doubt even the historians think that. Maybe something will come of it, but realistically everyone is in this for the fun of imagining what might have happened, and the joy of arguing about it confidently from flimsy evidence.
    - throwanem 5y ago
      > What do you think is going on here? Well, to go by your prior comments, you're confusing "pick whatever just-so story you like" with how history is done. Feel free to continue, of course; I've more or less given up arguing with post-truthers in general, and certainly see no point in doing so here.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Please don't give up. Give them something positive - they really have better options in life than a world of confusion and ignorance.
        throwanem 5y ago
        I'm not wholly without hostages to fortune, or at least people I love who don't know by default to mistrust everything they hear from the goddamned Internet. I worry about them first, friends after, and randos in HN comment threads with whatever's left over, which is nothing to speak of at the moment. I'm tired. So it goes.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        I understand. But I notice that the people spreading ignorance are not giving up or tiring (because, I hypothesize, they have initiative and belief that they will succeed). They've radically changed the world, which means the world can be changed. Our ideas are stronger and better. Anyway, I'm not trying to compel you, I'm just trying to include some important points in the discussion.
- dash2 5y ago
  Thucydides has entered the chat: "Now he that by the arguments here adduced shall frame a judgment of the things past and not believe rather that they were such as the poets have sung or prose-writers have composed, more delightfully to the ear than conformably to the truth, as being things not to be disproved and by length of time turned for the most part into the nature of fables without credit, but shall think them here searched out by the most evident signs that can be, and sufficiently too, considering their antiquity: he, I say, shall not err.... "To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, he shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. "

roenxi 5y ago

The book is a work of history. Of course it is completely speculative. The point of historical books is to convince people to read them, typically they have a fairly thick dose of spice and storytelling. Thucydides wasn't trying to bore people. The first "evidence that they may have had the technology to make sewn garments" link [0] looks like some dude ran a model. Now it is certainly possible to claim that as conclusive evidence. But probably only in a debate between historians, I wouldn't bank on it. 50,000 years ago is a long time. There is not a lot of confidence about how things happened, and reality defies mixing generalisation and truth. [0] https://anthropology.net/2009/06/26/neanderthals-dried-fresh-meat-wore-tailored-clothing-energy-study/ https://anthropology.net/2009/06/26/neanderthals-dried-fresh...

throwanem 5y ago
Do you mean to construct a defense of the "cannibal rapist Neandertal orcs" idea on the post-factualist basis that, well, there's no actually knowing anything, so we may as well pick whatever just-so story we like? That's a pretty weak defense, is why I'm asking. Almost anything else would be more convincing. So maybe it's worth asking whether you've got anything else to offer.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > there's no actually knowing anything, so we may as well pick whatever just-so story we like? What do you think is going on here? There isn't enough evidence to create an accurate truth, we've got no way of deciding if an accurate truth has been uncovered and it doesn't matter at all anyway. The process by which "truth" is found has a heavy bias towards good storytelling and typically strong political overtones. Do you feel HN is upvoting the story because anyone feels that accurately depicting the neanderthal lifestyle will have profound bearing on the course of the modern world? I doubt even the historians think that. Maybe something will come of it, but realistically everyone is in this for the fun of imagining what might have happened, and the joy of arguing about it confidently from flimsy evidence.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    > What do you think is going on here? Well, to go by your prior comments, you're confusing "pick whatever just-so story you like" with how history is done. Feel free to continue, of course; I've more or less given up arguing with post-truthers in general, and certainly see no point in doing so here.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Please don't give up. Give them something positive - they really have better options in life than a world of confusion and ignorance.
      - throwanem 5y ago
        I'm not wholly without hostages to fortune, or at least people I love who don't know by default to mistrust everything they hear from the goddamned Internet. I worry about them first, friends after, and randos in HN comment threads with whatever's left over, which is nothing to speak of at the moment. I'm tired. So it goes.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        I understand. But I notice that the people spreading ignorance are not giving up or tiring (because, I hypothesize, they have initiative and belief that they will succeed). They've radically changed the world, which means the world can be changed. Our ideas are stronger and better. Anyway, I'm not trying to compel you, I'm just trying to include some important points in the discussion.
dash2 5y ago
Thucydides has entered the chat: "Now he that by the arguments here adduced shall frame a judgment of the things past and not believe rather that they were such as the poets have sung or prose-writers have composed, more delightfully to the ear than conformably to the truth, as being things not to be disproved and by length of time turned for the most part into the nature of fables without credit, but shall think them here searched out by the most evident signs that can be, and sufficiently too, considering their antiquity: he, I say, shall not err.... "To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, he shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. "