5 ms·

Things rarely depend on any single form of evidence. The article deals at length with those other forms of evidence. In particular, the site does not fit (arch

Things rarely depend on any single form of evidence. The article deals at length with those other forms of evidence. In particular, the site does not fit (architecturally, the author's specialty) with what was happening around it at the alleged time of building. > Also, [2] seems to be a self-published article written by someone with no background, publication record, or known collaborations in archaeology or related fields. Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Einstein was a patent clerk, a standing that prevented a great many people from even bothering to read the work. The article is packed with citations that can be followed up on. It methodically takes apart Schmidt's original work. If you doubt the credibility of the analysis, perhaps start there. If he's being unfair to Schmidt's evidence, then that's a different matter.

jltsiren 4y ago
Einstein had already published several papers in physics and he was about to receive his PhD when he made his major discoveries in 1905. The idea that he was just some outsider patent clerk is an urban legend that needs to die. As an active researcher, I often find papers in distant fields easier to understand than those in my field. Papers on topics related to my research but not that close to it are particularly difficult. When I'm unfamiliar with the topic, I just see some text written in everyday language. And while most researchers are not great at writing, they are not particularly bad either, because they write so much. When I read such papers, I have absolutely no idea what I'm missing or misinterpreting. I may interpret technical terms with specific definitions as everyday words, and there may be shared context, implicit assumptions, and basic background knowledge I'm simply unaware of. Hence my default assumption that if you read a research paper and think you understood it, you probably didn't. Research is so specialized these days that you should require something better than your own beliefs to convince yourself that you understood what you read. Relying on external validation ("an expert is someone other experts on the topic recognize as an expert") is pretty useful when you are not an expert yourself.
- morpheos137 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - refulgentis 4y ago
    Idk, I read it as a humble, even self-effacing, comprehensive, yet concise, explanation of how to evaluate claims in common scenarios, as well as an explanation of interesting observations you gain from looking outside your discipline regularly.
- sigg3 4y ago
  I think you're half right. You might have read a specialized article and understood it, i.e. created a meaningful whole of all the parts. But you cannot verify it from prior experience with the domain, so it is an internally unconfirmed reading. In addition, subtle key terms might have been replaced with their mundane meanings. So while you understood the article, you don't have enough information (yet) to confidently say that you understood it correctly. Over time you gain domain knowledge, and it becomes easier to verify assumptions of new things you read, or to question and correct your own apparatus of understanding. There's an important observation to be made here, though, with regards to this behavior. Whenever subject field outsiders want to discuss a matter in my field of study, they invariably simplifies what they've read to childish levels and relate some personal property or recent event in their own life. I recognize they're simply being social, and appreciate the interaction for what it is, rather than getting annoyed by what it isn't. Human beings are social beings, and many internet comments (including of own) are just expressions of individuality and basic human need to partake rather than thoughtful arguments in an actual effort to discover something new. That said, I do believe e.g. Einstein's Relativität was written for the larger non-expert audience, so I would expect it to safeguard against most of the interpretative traps that would entail.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Einstein was a patent clerk..... Picking a case you think supports your claim without checking the rate at which unknown author claims turn out to be true likely only undermines your claims. The proper metric is: is the rate at which unknown authors making big claims that stand up to further scrutiny higher than the rate for well established experts in a field? The answer is no. Crackpots litter all fields, and rarely is anyone at that level correct when the experts are not. As to Einstein, he was published in top physics journals before he became a patent clerk, and he published at least 16 papers (some incorrect) before his big 1905 paper, which was a few years into his patent clerk job. He was certainly not some unknown. Your case is nothing at all like Einstein's case.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
Dendrinos is a moderately well-known guy by ancient near-eastern peeps and he's not regarded well. He doesn't really know what he's talking about and his paper makes that pretty obvious. Here are some random issues I can quickly point out from a skim: 1. Doesn't understand how typological classification works 2. Kind of offhandedly acknowledges, but doesn't actually cite the PPNA plaster dating that Dietrich and Schmidt did 6 years prior, negating the entire fill argument. 3. Starts comparing things to Natufian and other levant material cultures. 4. Just randomly starts assuming his urban planning hypotheses, which are neither well-accepted in the field nor well-regarded by people who specialize in that stuff as it applies to the ancient near-east. All of this is fine because he's essentially retired and simply getting into internet fights to avoid boredom. Nothing wrong with that, but let's avoid bringing him up as an authority.
Stevvo 4y ago
"doesn't fit architecturly" is not a good argument. We have never built temples in the same style as houses. The dating is rejected only because it doesn't fit the author's worldview. I laughed out loud at the caption of a photo of a much younger site; "structure more primitive than Gobekli Tepe, thus older."

jltsiren 4y ago

Einstein had already published several papers in physics and he was about to receive his PhD when he made his major discoveries in 1905. The idea that he was just some outsider patent clerk is an urban legend that needs to die. As an active researcher, I often find papers in distant fields easier to understand than those in my field. Papers on topics related to my research but not that close to it are particularly difficult. When I'm unfamiliar with the topic, I just see some text written in everyday language. And while most researchers are not great at writing, they are not particularly bad either, because they write so much. When I read such papers, I have absolutely no idea what I'm missing or misinterpreting. I may interpret technical terms with specific definitions as everyday words, and there may be shared context, implicit assumptions, and basic background knowledge I'm simply unaware of. Hence my default assumption that if you read a research paper and think you understood it, you probably didn't. Research is so specialized these days that you should require something better than your own beliefs to convince yourself that you understood what you read. Relying on external validation ("an expert is someone other experts on the topic recognize as an expert") is pretty useful when you are not an expert yourself.

morpheos137 4y ago
[flagged]
- refulgentis 4y ago
  Idk, I read it as a humble, even self-effacing, comprehensive, yet concise, explanation of how to evaluate claims in common scenarios, as well as an explanation of interesting observations you gain from looking outside your discipline regularly.
sigg3 4y ago
I think you're half right. You might have read a specialized article and understood it, i.e. created a meaningful whole of all the parts. But you cannot verify it from prior experience with the domain, so it is an internally unconfirmed reading. In addition, subtle key terms might have been replaced with their mundane meanings. So while you understood the article, you don't have enough information (yet) to confidently say that you understood it correctly. Over time you gain domain knowledge, and it becomes easier to verify assumptions of new things you read, or to question and correct your own apparatus of understanding. There's an important observation to be made here, though, with regards to this behavior. Whenever subject field outsiders want to discuss a matter in my field of study, they invariably simplifies what they've read to childish levels and relate some personal property or recent event in their own life. I recognize they're simply being social, and appreciate the interaction for what it is, rather than getting annoyed by what it isn't. Human beings are social beings, and many internet comments (including of own) are just expressions of individuality and basic human need to partake rather than thoughtful arguments in an actual effort to discover something new. That said, I do believe e.g. Einstein's Relativität was written for the larger non-expert audience, so I would expect it to safeguard against most of the interpretative traps that would entail.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

>Einstein was a patent clerk..... Picking a case you think supports your claim without checking the rate at which unknown author claims turn out to be true likely only undermines your claims. The proper metric is: is the rate at which unknown authors making big claims that stand up to further scrutiny higher than the rate for well established experts in a field? The answer is no. Crackpots litter all fields, and rarely is anyone at that level correct when the experts are not. As to Einstein, he was published in top physics journals before he became a patent clerk, and he published at least 16 papers (some incorrect) before his big 1905 paper, which was a few years into his patent clerk job. He was certainly not some unknown. Your case is nothing at all like Einstein's case.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

Dendrinos is a moderately well-known guy by ancient near-eastern peeps and he's not regarded well. He doesn't really know what he's talking about and his paper makes that pretty obvious. Here are some random issues I can quickly point out from a skim: 1. Doesn't understand how typological classification works 2. Kind of offhandedly acknowledges, but doesn't actually cite the PPNA plaster dating that Dietrich and Schmidt did 6 years prior, negating the entire fill argument. 3. Starts comparing things to Natufian and other levant material cultures. 4. Just randomly starts assuming his urban planning hypotheses, which are neither well-accepted in the field nor well-regarded by people who specialize in that stuff as it applies to the ancient near-east. All of this is fine because he's essentially retired and simply getting into internet fights to avoid boredom. Nothing wrong with that, but let's avoid bringing him up as an authority.

Stevvo 4y ago

"doesn't fit architecturly" is not a good argument. We have never built temples in the same style as houses. The dating is rejected only because it doesn't fit the author's worldview. I laughed out loud at the caption of a photo of a much younger site; "structure more primitive than Gobekli Tepe, thus older."