5 ms·

Your suppositions are interesting, but there's simply no proof of them.

Naga 4y ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unfortunately most of the (probable) evidence is under meters of water and mud.
- LeanderK 4y ago
  But also untouched. Maybe we'll find a way to dig up evidence in the future...
- judahmeek 4y ago
  Is there such a thing as "evidence of absence"?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    It's called a contradiction and it can only exist in the realms of logic.
  - earleybird 4y ago
    I'm thinking that would be demonstrating that there cannot be evidence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  As long as it has been investigated scientifically, then "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is actually not correct. To my understanding that is exactly how particle physics research is conducted. My understanding is that there is no evidence for pre-historic human societies that had advanced technologies. We have hard data in our genetics for the timeframes of human existence (statistical rate of random genetic drift vs nearest ancestors) in addition to the fossil record, we have good information from ice cores about when/what of particulates were in the atmosphere, we know general rates of tectonic movements , and it's easy to observe what's under kilometers of strata with drilling cores if anyone has a good hypothesis as to where to drill.
TSiege 4y ago
Why is the default assumption that since we can't prove humans had sophisticated and complex lives comparable to our own, that we must assume they are simpletons. Their minds were no less capable of our own, why shouldn't we assume they had complex morals and social structures?
- jpollock 4y ago
  Because that's how we differentiate science from theology.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Hard disagree here. There's a lot of differences between science and theology. There is nothing divine or holy about potential past civilizations.
    - jpollock 4y ago
      Divine/Holy are how powerful people prevent others from questioning things. I didn't mention Divine or Holy, just theology. The core difference between Science and Theology is how they deal with statements of "truth" without evidence. Theology starts with "it's true because I said so" Science starts with "it's true because I can demonstrate it" That humans were complex in the past is a good hypothesis. It needs evidence before it can be accepted as fact, or even necessarily expect respect from others. The lack of recent skull changes would seem to be a good start. If someone believes the hypothesis to be true, they will go explore and find evidence to back their claims. If there was a complex society in the English Channel, it's likely well preserved, just waiting to be found!
      - QuarterReptile 4y ago
        >Theology starts with "it's true because I said so" To believe this is to cut yourself off from an unfathomably rich collection of human knowledge, and it is sad to see someone committed to it.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
And in the absence of proof, the simplest assumption would be that humans then were just as human, and so had sophisticated societies etc.
- chucksmash 4y ago
  A simpler alternative assumption could be this: 1. sophistication is driven by specialization 2. the ability to specialize is driven by access to surplus energy 3. before the advent of agriculture bands of humans simply did not have the excess calories available to them to support a priesthood and philosophers and bureaucrats, etc.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > sophistication is driven by specialization Sophisticated technology is driven that way for sure, Sophisticated culture, I would argue, does not have those preconditions.
  - Planktonne 4y ago
    That is definitively not a simpler assumption. Each of those bullet points is itself a new assumption.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    Or maybe they simply choose to not spend those excess calories on philosophers and bureaucrats because doing so provided no immediate benefit? We have evidence showing that the rise of civilization and agriculture were a net negative for an average individual. It seems that at least in Egypt and Mesopotamia climate change, specifically an end of warmer and wetter climatic cycle, is what pushed people into fertile river valley. Most people would had probably preferred to remain hunter gatherers had that been possible or even independent farmers (which is what happened in the rest of the world. The people in Mesopotamia (and in other similar areas which were slowly turning into a desert) didn't really have a choice. Building and maintaining irrigation systems takes a lot of people and coordination. Since most would probably prefer to be the ones handling 'coordination' aspect rather than digging trenches in the mud priests and philosopher classes had to appear to maintain social cohesion. It's much easier to convince peasants to give X% their harvest to the local strongman when they know that he's an divinely appointed king or maybe even a living god himself.
greatpostman 4y ago
Actually I think platos account of Atlantis and how it coincides with the dates of the flood is evidence. How could he have known the exact years back of the flood? Sure it’s shaky, but the geology checks out.
dredmorbius 4y ago
There's actually pretty solid archaeological evidence of at least the cognitive capacities which would prefigure in civilisation through toolmaking and their complexity. This is a long but highly informative presentation by Sander van der Leeuw from 2012: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug Relevant segment begins at about 8m30s.

Naga 4y ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unfortunately most of the (probable) evidence is under meters of water and mud.

LeanderK 4y ago
But also untouched. Maybe we'll find a way to dig up evidence in the future...
judahmeek 4y ago
Is there such a thing as "evidence of absence"?
- imtringued 4y ago
  It's called a contradiction and it can only exist in the realms of logic.
- earleybird 4y ago
  I'm thinking that would be demonstrating that there cannot be evidence.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 4y ago
As long as it has been investigated scientifically, then "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is actually not correct. To my understanding that is exactly how particle physics research is conducted. My understanding is that there is no evidence for pre-historic human societies that had advanced technologies. We have hard data in our genetics for the timeframes of human existence (statistical rate of random genetic drift vs nearest ancestors) in addition to the fossil record, we have good information from ice cores about when/what of particulates were in the atmosphere, we know general rates of tectonic movements , and it's easy to observe what's under kilometers of strata with drilling cores if anyone has a good hypothesis as to where to drill.

TSiege 4y ago

Why is the default assumption that since we can't prove humans had sophisticated and complex lives comparable to our own, that we must assume they are simpletons. Their minds were no less capable of our own, why shouldn't we assume they had complex morals and social structures?

jpollock 4y ago
Because that's how we differentiate science from theology.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Hard disagree here. There's a lot of differences between science and theology. There is nothing divine or holy about potential past civilizations.
  - jpollock 4y ago
    Divine/Holy are how powerful people prevent others from questioning things. I didn't mention Divine or Holy, just theology. The core difference between Science and Theology is how they deal with statements of "truth" without evidence. Theology starts with "it's true because I said so" Science starts with "it's true because I can demonstrate it" That humans were complex in the past is a good hypothesis. It needs evidence before it can be accepted as fact, or even necessarily expect respect from others. The lack of recent skull changes would seem to be a good start. If someone believes the hypothesis to be true, they will go explore and find evidence to back their claims. If there was a complex society in the English Channel, it's likely well preserved, just waiting to be found!
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      >Theology starts with "it's true because I said so" To believe this is to cut yourself off from an unfathomably rich collection of human knowledge, and it is sad to see someone committed to it.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

And in the absence of proof, the simplest assumption would be that humans then were just as human, and so had sophisticated societies etc.

chucksmash 4y ago
A simpler alternative assumption could be this: 1. sophistication is driven by specialization 2. the ability to specialize is driven by access to surplus energy 3. before the advent of agriculture bands of humans simply did not have the excess calories available to them to support a priesthood and philosophers and bureaucrats, etc.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > sophistication is driven by specialization Sophisticated technology is driven that way for sure, Sophisticated culture, I would argue, does not have those preconditions.
- Planktonne 4y ago
  That is definitively not a simpler assumption. Each of those bullet points is itself a new assumption.
- qwytw 4y ago
  Or maybe they simply choose to not spend those excess calories on philosophers and bureaucrats because doing so provided no immediate benefit? We have evidence showing that the rise of civilization and agriculture were a net negative for an average individual. It seems that at least in Egypt and Mesopotamia climate change, specifically an end of warmer and wetter climatic cycle, is what pushed people into fertile river valley. Most people would had probably preferred to remain hunter gatherers had that been possible or even independent farmers (which is what happened in the rest of the world. The people in Mesopotamia (and in other similar areas which were slowly turning into a desert) didn't really have a choice. Building and maintaining irrigation systems takes a lot of people and coordination. Since most would probably prefer to be the ones handling 'coordination' aspect rather than digging trenches in the mud priests and philosopher classes had to appear to maintain social cohesion. It's much easier to convince peasants to give X% their harvest to the local strongman when they know that he's an divinely appointed king or maybe even a living god himself.

greatpostman 4y ago

Actually I think platos account of Atlantis and how it coincides with the dates of the flood is evidence. How could he have known the exact years back of the flood? Sure it’s shaky, but the geology checks out.

dredmorbius 4y ago

There's actually pretty solid archaeological evidence of at least the cognitive capacities which would prefigure in civilisation through toolmaking and their complexity. This is a long but highly informative presentation by Sander van der Leeuw from 2012: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug Relevant segment begins at about 8m30s.