3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat 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.