4 ms·
It took a while to find this one. Absence of evidence is not exactly evidence of absence. That’s the point.
by Robotbeat 1y ago
It took a while to find this one. Absence of evidence is not exactly evidence of absence. That’s the point.
- mmooss 1y agoYou've misunderstood. It's hard to prove a negative, which is the point. But made-up things are lies - evidence is the only currency of the realm.
- HelloImSteven 1y agoI took their meaning to be that we should keep looking into the whole matter since, either way, there might be more evidence to find. I don’t think they were dismissing this theory or its implications for political/ideological reasons—since they mentioned it seems plausible—but I could be naive. In any case, clearly the prevailing understanding is wrong in one way or another, and that should be reflected in curriculums alongside this new evidence.
- Robotbeat 1y agoYeah, although again, the error bars are too large to say with certainty this was pre-Columbus. But it really wouldn’t surprise me. As others pointed out, the Inuit traveled across the Bering Strait into what is now Russia many times pre-Columbus, so the idea they may have brought beads back with them is plausible.