Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#11

Post by aaaaaatttuyy »

red-indian wrote: post #6

There's a great deal of sites with compelling evidence of being even much older. Topper SC tool site at 50kBP, San Diego butchered mastodon site at 130kBP, Tlapacoya at 25kBP, many others.

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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15...

Can't speak about the others, as I'm not familiar with them. I'm also not gonna do all the critical thinking around here while im buzzed on a saturday night. Do your own research.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#12

Post by aaaaaatttuyy »

ianai wrote: post #4
aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #3

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 context was secure, (c) dates samples are representative of secure contexts, (d) samples are not contaminated and were processed effectively, (e) the dating of the site as a whole is in…

Is there anyway to see an outline of such “borderline“/maybe someday discoveries?

No idea what you mean by outline. Also, I'm glad that you implicitly recognize the difference between being wrong and having insufficient data.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#13

Post by ErotemeObelus »

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#14

Post by aaaaaatttuyy »

ErotemeObelus wrote: post #13

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

Yep, that's pretty much how science works actually.

For the downvoters out there: knowledge is validated in relation to what we already know. I do not deny the existence of reality, but our ability to know it.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#15

Post by zzo38computer »

ErotemeObelus wrote: post #13

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

Other than mathematics, I think what you say is sense. Still, you can make a good approximation even if it is not the real truth; that is how you can make something useful with science.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#16

Post by DoreenMichele »

Sadly, this seems to be par for the course.

It took 50 years for plate tectonics to go from "some crackpot theory" to accepted science. Wikipedia politely says the theory was controversial and not widely accepted when initially proposed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

One of my "favorites": They essentially murdered Semmelweis for suggesting doctors should wash their hands. Never mind that he was a doctor in charge of two clinics with studies to back up his claim, they threw him in an insane asylum where he was badly beaten by the guards shortly after being locked up. The beating directly led to his death shortly thereafter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It's a wonder we ever make any scientific progress given our track record in that regard.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#17

Post by aaaaaatttuyy »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #16

Sadly, this seems to be par for the course. It took 50 years for plate tectonics to go from "some crackpot theory" to accepted science. Wikipedia politely says the theory was controversial and not widely accepted when initially proposed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics One of my "favorites": They essentially murdered Semmelweis for suggesting doctors shou…

Ummm how do these examples have anything to do with the actual case at hand? You're just wildly throwing extremely different examples out there and drawing completely inadequate comparisons. You're essentially flailing like a madman, learn to think critically.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#18

Post by guramarx »

ErotemeObelus wrote: post #13

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

"science advances one funeral at a time" ~ Max Planck

Reality is a subjective experience, shared yet interpreted differently by each, irregardless of the real truth

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#19

Post by everdev »

ErotemeObelus wrote: post #13

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

Well, many have sought absolute truth and "I think therefore I am" or simply "I am" is about as close as we've come.

Scientific truths are really useful for everyday life, but they're not guaranteed to be true into eternity.

There are countless examples of scientific consensus being overturned with new data, observations and experiments.

It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#20

Post by pdonis »

everdev wrote: post #19
ErotemeObelus wrote: post #13

Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

Well, many have sought absolute truth and "I think therefore I am" or simply "I am" is about as close as we've come. Scientific truths are really useful for everyday life, but they're not guaranteed to be true into eternity. There are countless examples of scientific consensus being overturned with new data, observations and experiments. It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that scientifi…

> It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument.

One should not ignore scientific consensus as a suggestion of what beliefs to examine.

But one should ignore it as evidence in favor of a belief once you've decided to examine it. Scientific consensus is not an argument at all.

Post reply on HN