11–20 of 43 posts
Anthropologists have known this for at least 50 years. Props for raising awareness of the field, though.
Yes, some of the things mentioned as new ideas were discussed years ago. Like the idea that some primitive form of plant domestication may have been happening prior to the agricultural revolution of 9000-10000 years ago.
> "Anthropologists are simply realizing that early cities took extremely diverse forms. "Clearly, urbanism is different in different parts of the world, and we need to be more flexible in how we define this," he explained. The tropics demonstrate that where we draw the lines of agriculture and urbanism can be very difficult to determine." It seems that the more humans learn about any topic: our own agricultural histo…
This is the very tension between Platonism with its emphasis on unity and Aristotelianism which sees complex diversity everywhere. How can we get these two systems to work together? How can we have both unity and diversity?
And now you know where the word "university" comes from.
(Who says all those history and philosophy classes were a waste of time? Besides me, I mean.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every point of knowledge has a degree of certainty or uncertainty around it. It certainly isn't a point that is taught well enough in education. "The science is settled that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old" is a perfectly fair statement, for instance.
Science never settles anything, it's why it's such a successful idea. "Current evidence says the world is about 13.8 billion years old" is the way I would word that. With your method, a later revision says science was wrong, when it just didn't have enough evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science never settles anything, it's why it's such a successful idea. "Current evidence says the world is about 13.8 billion years old" is the way I would word that. With your method, a later revision says science was wrong, when it just didn't have enough evidence.
It makes a difference whether you're speaking pragmatically or philosophically. Since we live in a practical universe, there are facts of science that are so well established that there is no reason to doubt them. And many facts that aren't as well established.
When I was growing up, things seemed pretty much settled. We knew where the first humans came from, we knew when and where agriculture started, we even had 9 planets in our solar system. This was the truths scientists had discovered and it was unquestionable. It was printed in books to last forever. But you grow up, and you realize that these things are malleable. It's more like as of 1998, Lucy is the oldest human r…
> "Anthropologists are simply realizing that early cities took extremely diverse forms. "Clearly, urbanism is different in different parts of the world, and we need to be more flexible in how we define this," he explained. The tropics demonstrate that where we draw the lines of agriculture and urbanism can be very difficult to determine." It seems that the more humans learn about any topic: our own agricultural histo…
> "Anthropologists are simply realizing that early cities took extremely diverse forms. "Clearly, urbanism is different in different parts of the world, and we need to be more flexible in how we define this," he explained. The tropics demonstrate that where we draw the lines of agriculture and urbanism can be very difficult to determine." It seems that the more humans learn about any topic: our own agricultural histo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes a difference whether you're speaking pragmatically or philosophically. Since we live in a practical universe, there are facts of science that are so well established that there is no reason to doubt them. And many facts that aren't as well established.
I know in this practical universe, Newton's laws of physics and Einstein's views of quantum physics were both at one point "facts" but later shown to be mere approximations and both of them worth being doubted. There's no point to having science if all we are going to do is assume everything that comes out of the process as the gospel.
As far as I can tell, nobody in this thread is even remotely suggesting that.
> "Anthropologists are simply realizing that early cities took extremely diverse forms. "Clearly, urbanism is different in different parts of the world, and we need to be more flexible in how we define this," he explained. The tropics demonstrate that where we draw the lines of agriculture and urbanism can be very difficult to determine." It seems that the more humans learn about any topic: our own agricultural histo…
> this is much more complex than we thought it was. > it seems the deeper one dives into any topic the more difficult it is to, as the article says, "draw the lines". Has anybody experienced an intellectual exploration to the contrary? This is the very tension between Platonism with its emphasis on unity and Aristotelianism which sees complex diversity everywhere. How can we get these two systems to work together? Ho…
I've always seen things as having a 'level of abstraction'. At one level of abstraction things can have unity, but as you 'zoom in' and change the level of abstraction you'll see the differences and have diversity.
From a distance stars and snowflakes all look the same, but not on closer inspection. Similarly in a foreign country, at first people will all seem the same, but as you spend more time there you level of abstraction changes and you start to see greater diversity.
Since you can zoom in/out infinitely there's no correct level of abstraction to start from or accept as a default, therefore things have great unity and diversity, simultaneously.
When I was growing up, things seemed pretty much settled. We knew where the first humans came from, we knew when and where agriculture started, we even had 9 planets in our solar system. This was the truths scientists had discovered and it was unquestionable. It was printed in books to last forever. But you grow up, and you realize that these things are malleable. It's more like as of 1998, Lucy is the oldest human r…
One of the benefits of having researchers teaching is that they have a better understanding of both the content and dynamics of their field. This is far different from primary and secondary schools, where teachers are usually teaching outside of their discipline. Even a high school physics teacher with a science degree is likely to be a biologist or a chemist by training.
Of course, there are a multitude of other differences with university educations. For example: governments don't set the curriculum, which is hugely beneficial for fields like history. (Governments have a nasty desire to set the historical narrative.)