4 ms·
What is most striking to me about this article is the level of fallacy in reasoning that's exhibited throughout this entire scientific debate: - Well they had
by sebastiennight 3y ago
What is most striking to me about this article is the level of fallacy in reasoning that's exhibited throughout this entire scientific debate:
- Well they had small brains, so there's no way they were the toolmakers
- We found lots of remains of Australopithecus here, and usually there are very few remains of the toolmaking species, so obviously, Australopithecus is not the toolmaker
It seems remarkable how much of the whole scientific edifice described in the article is pure conjecture with little in the way of "actual discoverable/provable truth". I can see how this field must be so fascinating and keep someone's fascination going for a lifetime.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoThink about it like this: Anthropology is trying to answer questions about things that either aren’t measurable, or only measurable by proxies. Otherwise it’s “history” - being basically every data that is recorded directly from the source or with few proxies This really messes with epistemological reasoning chains and strength of “proof” that can be made from proxy data You can’t build an a/b test or experimental process or define a study population for questions like: “what happened in 15000BC” “Why did humans develop language” Etc… That’s not to say you can’t have very strong conclusions, but just think of the predictive power of keplers equations compared to the process of specieation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]