5 ms·
Not picking on you, more on this kind if comment. I think it is easy to be snide about fields like archaeology when you come from a field of absolutisms and p
by jimnotgym 4y ago
Not picking on you, more on this kind if comment.
I think it is easy to be snide about fields like archaeology when you come from a field of absolutisms and proofs, but what else are they supposed to do with gaps in knowledge? We don't have to approach CS work wondering if the 1s and 0s we found were naturally occurring, or put there by some level of intelligent being. Our field in entirely of human construction.
The extension of this attitude leads to situations where Talib is berating a Classics professor for there being 'no data to back up her claim'! As if we can't study anything without data, or we should ignore history until there is something for a mathematician to work with on it.
Perhaps we should poke fun at the physicists who talk about 'dark matter' in the same way.
What a boring world it would be without shifting knowledge of the known and unknown.
- benj111 4y agoOn the other hand "I don't know" is a valid, and (should be) an acceptable answer. 'ritual use' is code for, I don't have a clue what practical use this thing could have. This isn't about known v unknown, it's about being intellectually honest and admitting the unknown.
- pyinstallwoes 4y agoI can’t know is what’s lacking from the zeitgeist. Too many people say I don’t know which implies they can. No, often it is can’t know.
- benj111 4y agoReally? What is the meaning of life? Where did the universe come from? Some of the most interesting questions are unanswerable / don't have a correct answer. In the field of archaeology there generally isn't the absolute 'can't know' though. Until the Rosetta stone came along we didn't know what various hieroglyphs meant. But the hypothetical existence, however remote of another Rosetta stone means we can know the answer to these various questions.
- i_am_proteus 4y ago"I can't know" is good shorthand for "this cannot be known with precision, given available information." Good scientists discuss and, when possible, quantify uncertainty.
- benj111 4y agoIs it good shorthand? Seems as flawed as hypothecating ritual use. Again if you don't know something, just say you don't know. If something can't be known, hypothecate, fine, but be honest about your ability to know. Good scientists should surely be precise and intellectually honest at minimum.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoYes, it's good shorthand.
- svnt 4y ago> But the hypothetical existence, however remote of another Rosetta stone means we can know the answer to these various questions. Partially flawed logic here aside, a Rosetta stone needs to be qualified in this case. We most likely (almost definitely) cannot know whether these tools at these sites were made and used by hominins or monkeys without time travel, as the sites themselves have been processed and additional discoveries likely eliminated as a result of the destruction of the sites. A Rosetta stone in this setting would be a recorded observation by hominins that lived in the time of themselves making and using these tools at every site that is at question, made in a format we could interpret, because anything else leaves open the possibility that at least one of them, and thus many other sites, were made by monkeys. Recovering this Rosetta stone, or its equivalent, is so unlikely that can’t is the better answer.
- benj111 4y agoI disagree that it's flawed logic. It is possible to know, we just don't. You for example are presupposing that no technology will come along that will eg allow us to detect fingerprints, or tooth marks in bones or nuts found nearby. You're also presupposing that no new sites will come to light. If anyone postulated the existence of the Rosetta stone before it's discovery, do you think anyone would have said it's existence was in any way likely?
- benreesman 4y agoI was personally amused by the GP’s joke about the absurdity of there being any bright lines between different hominid species. And I was also amused by your quip about the laziness of the dark matter explanation for gravity we don’t understand. IMHO there is a place for humor here as long as it’s on topic. Just my 2c.
- jimnotgym 4y agoI liked the joke, but I had to pick on one of the several similar comments... and picked this one
- dalbasal 4y agoHonestly, I feel like "ritual use" makes for a good placeholder. Cliché is better than creativity, in this instance. Everyone knows "ritual objects" means stuff without known/obvious use. We know that people's stuff is often hard to explain, with context. This captures it. Also, a lot of what people do is ritual. We may not see our culture this way, but it's often a good description. What's a credit card signature? What's a baseball trophy, fidget spinner or star ears figurine?
- david-gpu 4y ago> Everyone knows "ritual objects" means stuff without known/obvious use How to distinguish between "for ritual use (for real)" vs. "for ritual use (nudge, nudge, wink wink)"? Why not say "we don't know yet", instead? Like a normal person.
- Retric 4y agoBecause we don’t know if anything from archeology is “for ritual use (for real).” Sometimes people just do odd stuff because it’s cool. Mount Rushmore should make you wonder about giant ancient statues. In 10,000 years people might be looking a remnants of Christ the Redeemer statue and think it’s clearly for ritual use. But we know it isn’t for ‘ritual use (for real)’ so someone making such an obvious leap would be wrong, thus making other such seemingly obvious leaps could just as easily be wrong.
- Y_Y 4y agoPeople, including knowledgeable physicists and astronomers talk about about dark matter all the time, and with good reason. Let's make theories but be upfront about their shortcomings, especially if they're funny.
- MrPatan 4y ago> what else are they supposed to do with gaps in knowledge? Not saying anything about it, or saying "I don't know what that's about" sound like OK choices to me.
- yokoprime 4y agoHaving been in a position where I would maintain archaic software, I can tell you there certainly are gaps in knowledge in CS as well.
- Izkata 4y ago> We don't have to approach CS work wondering if the 1s and 0s we found were naturally occurring, or put there by some level of intelligent being. Our field in entirely of human construction. Well, in hardware engineering and on the lower levels of software you may well have to keep it in mind: https://community.hiveeyes.org/t/soft-errors-caused-by-single-event-upsets-seus-aka-ecc-ram-absolutely-matters/1891 https://community.hiveeyes.org/t/soft-errors-caused-by-singl...