3 ms·

We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for. Sure, other small civs likely existed, but we don't have known evidence of them and their history

by mc32 5y ago

We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for. Sure, other small civs likely existed, but we don't have known evidence of them and their history, etc. At most we have tombs and archeological ruins to go by. So we go with the earliest civs for whom we have written evidence as well as lots of physical evidence for in addition to present-day influence. Otherwise things start to get very speculative.

animal_spirits 5y ago
Yeah we shouldn't say we "know" that advanced civilizations existed, but there's nothing wrong with hypothesizing that they did. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- donkeybeer 5y ago
  But we must also be careful not to get into Russel's teapot territory in the course of our hypothesizing.
newsclues 5y ago
Plato wrote about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue) “Let me begin by observing, first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between all those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and those who dwelt within them: this war I am now to describe. Of the combatants on the one side the city of Athens was reported to have been the ruler, and to have directed the contest; the combatants on the other side were led by the kings of the islands of Atlantis,”
robonerd 5y ago
> We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for There is nuance here, in the degree to which uncertainty due to lack of evidence is surfaced in scientific communications for the public. Take for instance, the behavior of dogs. Science cannot [yet] objectively answer the question of how much the subjective qualia of a dog is comparable to the qualia of humans. What then can we say about whether dogs feel 'love'? Some might say that science has not yet answered this question; that is fine. But others get overeager and assert that because science hasn't demonstrated that dogs feel love, the scientific position is to assume all apparent demonstrations of love from dogs are little more than elaborate food seeking behavior. This goes too far, it assumes a lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary, implicitly treating science as complete until proven otherwise. I think this overzealous sort of 'scientific' thinking reflects a dogmatic attitude which is actually antithetical to the real scientific method.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  It’s a great point. When you get to the edge of knowledge, ignoring obvious things and glossing over tends to rule the day. Knowing what we know about people, it seems absurd to think that people just went poof, “civilization” has arrived! There were a lot fewer humans in the past, and hundreds of generations are lost to time. But the narrative of the pageant of history, often leading to the <insert nation here> greatness of today doesn’t work with “I don’t know”
- mc32 5y ago
  Well, it would seem like the middle way would be to postulate things such as these but not assert them as 'received knowledge'. And just as we might postulate that dogs can experience love, we can also postulate the opposite and discuss both without giving one a preponderance of support till we can develop such support.
- Cupertino95014 5y ago
  - robonerd 5y ago
    I chose to use that word to preempt nitpicky objections about measuring oxytocin in dog brains (which doesn't actually tell you anything about the subjective experience the dog feels.) 'Qualia' refers specifically to the subjective conscious experience, which is something science is presently ill-equipped to answer questions about. The word 'qualities' does not have the same rhetorical effect. As an aside, what's the point of complaining about uncommon words? Dictionaries have never been more convenient to use. If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched.
    - vasco 5y ago
      > If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched. That was me and I was glad to learn it. Thanks for using it!

by mc32 5y ago

animal_spirits 5y ago

Yeah we shouldn't say we "know" that advanced civilizations existed, but there's nothing wrong with hypothesizing that they did. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

donkeybeer 5y ago
But we must also be careful not to get into Russel's teapot territory in the course of our hypothesizing.

newsclues 5y ago

Plato wrote about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue) “Let me begin by observing, first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between all those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and those who dwelt within them: this war I am now to describe. Of the combatants on the one side the city of Athens was reported to have been the ruler, and to have directed the contest; the combatants on the other side were led by the kings of the islands of Atlantis,”

robonerd 5y ago

> We can only go by what we know and what we have evidence for There is nuance here, in the degree to which uncertainty due to lack of evidence is surfaced in scientific communications for the public. Take for instance, the behavior of dogs. Science cannot [yet] objectively answer the question of how much the subjective qualia of a dog is comparable to the qualia of humans. What then can we say about whether dogs feel 'love'? Some might say that science has not yet answered this question; that is fine. But others get overeager and assert that because science hasn't demonstrated that dogs feel love, the scientific position is to assume all apparent demonstrations of love from dogs are little more than elaborate food seeking behavior. This goes too far, it assumes a lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary, implicitly treating science as complete until proven otherwise. I think this overzealous sort of 'scientific' thinking reflects a dogmatic attitude which is actually antithetical to the real scientific method.

Spooky23 5y ago
It’s a great point. When you get to the edge of knowledge, ignoring obvious things and glossing over tends to rule the day. Knowing what we know about people, it seems absurd to think that people just went poof, “civilization” has arrived! There were a lot fewer humans in the past, and hundreds of generations are lost to time. But the narrative of the pageant of history, often leading to the <insert nation here> greatness of today doesn’t work with “I don’t know”
mc32 5y ago
Well, it would seem like the middle way would be to postulate things such as these but not assert them as 'received knowledge'. And just as we might postulate that dogs can experience love, we can also postulate the opposite and discuss both without giving one a preponderance of support till we can develop such support.
Cupertino95014 5y ago
- robonerd 5y ago
  I chose to use that word to preempt nitpicky objections about measuring oxytocin in dog brains (which doesn't actually tell you anything about the subjective experience the dog feels.) 'Qualia' refers specifically to the subjective conscious experience, which is something science is presently ill-equipped to answer questions about. The word 'qualities' does not have the same rhetorical effect. As an aside, what's the point of complaining about uncommon words? Dictionaries have never been more convenient to use. If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched.
  - vasco 5y ago
    > If you didn't know the word before, then in about 5 seconds you can learn what it means and your personal vocabulary will be enriched. That was me and I was glad to learn it. Thanks for using it!