3 ms·
Archaeology, 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 neithe
by Amezarak 3y ago
Archaeology, 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.