4 ms·

The academic consensus, incorrect as it may be, is based on scientific evidence of human existence in the Americas. Is there similar evidence that academia has

The academic consensus, incorrect as it may be, is based on scientific evidence of human existence in the Americas. Is there similar evidence that academia has ignored but indigenous peoples are aware of? Or are you referring to oral tradition?

nequo 3y ago
The academic consensus is usually reached through a social process, so who wields authority within the discipline also influences what the consensus is. An example from mathematics: the shunning of Georg Cantor for his proof that the real numbers are uncountably infinite.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
- marcellus23 3y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't mean consensus is wrong by default. If there's evidence that mainstream academia is ignoring without good reason, that's another matter, but to my knowledge that's not the case.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    I don't think people are suggesting it is wrong by default, just that it's not correct by default, and is in this case the theory it has arrived at is deeply underdetermined by the evidence.
    - marcellus23 3y ago
      My understanding is that the theory made sense given the evidence we had, and now that we have new evidence, it calls that theory into question — isn't this the nature of scientific progress? And, regardless, what does any of this have to do with indigenous knowledge?
      - calderknight 3y ago
        A lot of theories make sense given the evidence we have.
        marcellus23 3y ago
        I don't know what your point is.
        calderknight 3y ago
        If a lot of theories made sense given the evidence we had, why would we need new evidence in order to call the theory into question? The theory was never not in question.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  .. and therefore a Native Americans' belief that they were always here is equally valid, because social yada yada yada? Nonsense.
  - nequo 3y ago
    There are more than two statements that can be made about the world. The statement that you are claiming that I made I did not make.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      but that IS something that native peoples typically believe, and they do reject the notion that their ancestors migrated from Siberia. Despite overwhelming DNA evidence. So what was your point, then?
      - nequo 3y ago
        Parent said that the academic consensus is based on scientific evidence. My point was that the academic consensus can also reflect authority rather than evidence. Evidence for pre-Clovis human presence has been known for a while but its validity has been questioned by consensus opinion. I did not say anything about the beliefs of indigenous people. I also did not question the available DNA evidence nor historical migration from Siberia.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        So your point is: scientific consensus isn't 100%? Ok. So what?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- cogman10 3y ago
  Academics is entirely different depending on the field. In the case of archeology, it's almost always spoken in terms of "here's the earliest evidence we have of humans in an area". I don't think any archeologist will say "Oh, humans were not here earlier than X date" but rather "Here's the evidence we have of humans being at this location at this date. Digging through their refuse, it appears this is what they ate.". A field like mathematics has historically had a large degree of philosophy in it. There's not exactly a bunch of empirical evidence you can bring in to prove math one way or another (hence things like irrational numbers creating cults).
  - nequo 3y ago
    That is true, mathematics is different in the substance of the debate. In archeology, to my cursory understanding as a non-archeologist, the debate has been about whether the evidence for pre-Clovis human habitation in the Americas can be accepted as valid. There is a wide gray area where acceptance comes down to subjective views, and if it is so, then authority affects what consensus is reached. If enough evidence is amassed, then we presumably shift out of the grey area and authority becomes unimportant in the consensus.

nequo 3y ago

The academic consensus is usually reached through a social process, so who wields authority within the discipline also influences what the consensus is. An example from mathematics: the shunning of Georg Cantor for his proof that the real numbers are uncountably infinite.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

marcellus23 3y ago
Sure, but that doesn't mean consensus is wrong by default. If there's evidence that mainstream academia is ignoring without good reason, that's another matter, but to my knowledge that's not the case.
- calderknight 3y ago
  I don't think people are suggesting it is wrong by default, just that it's not correct by default, and is in this case the theory it has arrived at is deeply underdetermined by the evidence.
  - marcellus23 3y ago
    My understanding is that the theory made sense given the evidence we had, and now that we have new evidence, it calls that theory into question — isn't this the nature of scientific progress? And, regardless, what does any of this have to do with indigenous knowledge?
    - calderknight 3y ago
      A lot of theories make sense given the evidence we have.
      - marcellus23 3y ago
        I don't know what your point is.
        calderknight 3y ago
        If a lot of theories made sense given the evidence we had, why would we need new evidence in order to call the theory into question? The theory was never not in question.
AlbertCory 3y ago
.. and therefore a Native Americans' belief that they were always here is equally valid, because social yada yada yada? Nonsense.
- nequo 3y ago
  There are more than two statements that can be made about the world. The statement that you are claiming that I made I did not make.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    but that IS something that native peoples typically believe, and they do reject the notion that their ancestors migrated from Siberia. Despite overwhelming DNA evidence. So what was your point, then?
    - nequo 3y ago
      Parent said that the academic consensus is based on scientific evidence. My point was that the academic consensus can also reflect authority rather than evidence. Evidence for pre-Clovis human presence has been known for a while but its validity has been questioned by consensus opinion. I did not say anything about the beliefs of indigenous people. I also did not question the available DNA evidence nor historical migration from Siberia.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        So your point is: scientific consensus isn't 100%? Ok. So what?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
cogman10 3y ago
Academics is entirely different depending on the field. In the case of archeology, it's almost always spoken in terms of "here's the earliest evidence we have of humans in an area". I don't think any archeologist will say "Oh, humans were not here earlier than X date" but rather "Here's the evidence we have of humans being at this location at this date. Digging through their refuse, it appears this is what they ate.". A field like mathematics has historically had a large degree of philosophy in it. There's not exactly a bunch of empirical evidence you can bring in to prove math one way or another (hence things like irrational numbers creating cults).
- nequo 3y ago
  That is true, mathematics is different in the substance of the debate. In archeology, to my cursory understanding as a non-archeologist, the debate has been about whether the evidence for pre-Clovis human habitation in the Americas can be accepted as valid. There is a wide gray area where acceptance comes down to subjective views, and if it is so, then authority affects what consensus is reached. If enough evidence is amassed, then we presumably shift out of the grey area and authority becomes unimportant in the consensus.