5 ms·
Some version of this comes up at every thread touching on archaeology, and frankly it’s tired. The authors are professionals, deeply embedded in a body of know
by smogcutter 3y ago
Some version of this comes up at every thread touching on archaeology, and frankly it’s tired.
The authors are professionals, deeply embedded in a body of knowledge and practice, making a conjecture for an audience of their peers. They take for granted information, context, and training that most of us do not have.
Am I saying their credentials mean they’re right? Of course not. I have no idea.
What I’ve got instead is the epistemic humility to recognize that just because I am unqualified to evaluate this evidence doesn’t mean everybody is.
Hey, if turns out you’re an archaeologist I’ll happily eat crow. But somehow I think the local birds are safe tonight.
Sometimes, you don’t know something. Sometimes, you don’t even really want to know (or you’d ask a question)! When those times come around, and they will, it’s okay to just… not post.
(Edited to soften tone slightly)
- groffee 3y ago[dead]
- hnfong 3y agoIf you read carefully the GP is just paraphrasing the quoted paragraph in a different tone. Disclaimer: not an archeologist of course.
- kergonath 3y agoEloquently put, thank you. That said, I’d like some context about the link between trading and flat heads, because it’s really not obvious to me either.
- Chris2048 3y agoYeah, isn't it tiring when mere plebs question the academia class?
- robertlagrant 3y agoI'm not an archeologist, but I've just use a mallet to deform my cranium in the hopes that that qualifies me to comment on this article as I would be able to on any other on HN without being berated for my lack of humility.
- Amezarak 3y agoArchaeology, like many fields, is chock-full of bunk. Of course you're right we shouldn't immediately dismiss it or assume we know more than they do. But neither should we trust-by-default, either. The GP is asking a perfectly reasonable question about whether or not the hypothesis is at all justified. Even the authors phrase the question in such weak terms and so provisionally it seems almost like filler text. In general, we should recognize experts, but not everyone in their field is an expert and expertise should not be overrated, either - expertise overrating is a major cultural problem we have today.
- smogcutter 3y agoI mostly disagree with you, but see your point so I’ll try to clarify: > The GP is asking a perfectly reasonable question about whether or not the hypothesis is at all justified. The thing is that GP didn’t ask a question. They stated plainly that they “feel” it’s BS the authors “whipped up” because they had “nothing else to go on”. I make no suggestion that we should agree with the authors. I do suggest that it’s wise to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that they’re acting in good faith whether right or wrong. That’s what I’m ranting about, not that GP doesn’t agree with them. And no, expertise should not be overrated, but surely it should be rated. Another major cultural problem we have is rank anti-intellectualism. A blithe dismissal of anything outside of one’s own common sense as not just wrong but actively disingenuous. That’s not a healthy skepticism, and it leads to no knowledge.
- goodbyesf 3y ago> Some version of this comes up at every thread touching on archaeology, and frankly it’s tired. Even more tiring are people trying to silence discussion. > it’s okay to just… not post. Why not take your own advice? Why are you here then? Don't read the comments and just read the articles. It's exhausting reading intentionally manipulative comments like yours.