aaaaaatttuyy

6 ms·

1.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
Archaeologists are constantly aware of what they don't know and cannot know, and make these things very clear when they publish. Seems like you are taking pseudoarchaeologists at the word when they make accusations about legitimate arc
2.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
No idea what you mean by outline. Also, I'm glad that you implicitly recognize the difference between being wrong and having insufficient data.
3.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
Yep, the Cerruti mastodon site in San Diego is not actually the result of human activity. See the following references: + https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15... + https://w
4.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
Yep, it does indeed have a nefarious past, and archaeologist tend to own this criticism and have worked towards genuinely working in an anti-colonial spirit (though there are still soooo many things that need to be improved upon). Does this
5.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
Graham Hancock is an egotistical moron who is more entrenched in his own beliefs than any actual archaeologist today would ever be. What he and other pseudoarchaeologists claim to be orthodoxy in the discipline is actually a representation
6.
by aaaaaatttuyy 7y ago
I work at a site that claims to have evidence that would have similar implications. The burden of proof is indeed very high, and for good reason. You need to demonstrate that (a) the remains were the product of human activity, (b) the conte
7.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
> The pyramids are an example of this distinction. The pyramids were never lost. They were in plain sight the entire time. Local people knew about them. They were 'discovered' by European colonizers and integrated into a pop cu
8.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
> Surely "LEAST" would be doing only non-invasive sensing, and rescue digs? Many digs still aren't. You're nitpicking and you know it. >> digging test pits and strips, to avoid complete site exposure > And oh
9.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
I never claimed you took back any of your own claims. But you did misrepresent mine. Your quotes and citations do not support your argument in any way, and are therefore irrelevant. I did not read the entire article you just posted, but it
10.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
I am not asserting that he is tendentious. I'm writing that his public outreach work is a necessary part of being a scientist, as it helps improve public understanding of valid and invalid knowledge, and helps hold its improper use to
11.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
> Your first criticism was that Krugman and Yudkowsky weren’t biologists, so I found multiple examples of biologists saying Gould was untrustworthy. Now you’re claiming that the critics of Gould are politicising science. This is a bit ri
12.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
Again, I find it really funny that these guys are politicizing the guy who they claim to be politicizing science. All of this critique is criticism of character and of rhetorical style. As an aside, I also think it's funny that you cou
13.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
Guns, Germs and Steel is an absolute garbage book. It's pseudoscience, plain and simple. It's teaching unacceptable ways to think about culture, by any anthropologist's standards.
14.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
neither of those quotes, written by people who are not biologists, actually demonstrate how Gould is supposedly wrong. I find it ironic that they are the ones accusing Gould of politicizing evolutionary biology, but they are the ones doing
15.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
What is pseudoscientific about those words? Read the book to see how they are used, and why the selected language is actually sensible in its given context. Your criticism is like telling a pharmacist not to use the terminology that disting
16.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
> Musk is technically very clever (have you seen SpaceX rockets landing in tandem?)s o it's likely he has something that comes close to what he's saying. This was done in the 90s, there's nothing special about landing rock
17.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
I'm curious about what you consider 'other areas' to be, and about how competent you think you are at them.
18.
by aaaaaatttuyy 8y ago
College is education, not training. Crucial aspects of working in the real world are learned on the job, things that how to operate in an office environment, how to collaborate, how to write, present and justify your ideas and render them i