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

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#21

Post by networkimprov »

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…

If Wegener had had the ocean floor topography and magnetometry data to point to, I imagine the reception would have been warmer.

Lacking that, the proposal that a ball of rock has certain immense rocks that float around on the remaining rock, and far enough to create vast oceans, would sound quite crackpot today.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#22

Post by sctb »

aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #17
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.

Yikes, let's please not engage in personal attacks like this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#23

Post by marcus_holmes »

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…

I'd be much more forgiving of archeology and archeologists if they admitted what they didn't know, rather than presenting theories as facts.

"Ritual Purposes" is the poster child for this. Site reports I've read from early medieval digs on artifacts rarely say "purpose unknown" or even "probably art", but instead say "ritual purposes".

I understand that creating a theory for, say, early American migration, is useful and a good thing, as long as everyone understands that it's not "what happened". It's the current theory, and can be disproven at any time by better evidence.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#24

Post by antonvs »

aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #10
sandworm101 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we must still remember that archaeology in particular has been tainted by various non-scientific ideas. It is an old discipline that, at times, was used for political purposes. For instance this passage: >>> Evidence had long suggested that humans first reached the Americas around 13,000 years ago, when Asian hunters crossed a now submerged landmass known as Beringia, which joined Siberia to Alaska and Yukon duri…

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 negate the work that has come out of archaeological research? Not necessarily. Also note that genetics has been harnessed extensively for political purposes, especially in tandem…

The issue isn't unique to archaeology.

Another notorious example was the discovery of the bacteria that causes most ulcers - the person who discovered that was vilified for at least a decade or so.

The root problem is simple: most people treat what they learned during their initial education as a kind of gospel, which they defend with the same fervour as any faith. This defense relies on things like social shaming to repel ideas that challenge their faith. This means that for an individual, stepping outside the faith has consequences, which has the effect of keeping most people in line and part of the defense against significant change.

Max Planck recognized this when he wrote, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#26

Post by ianai »

aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #12
ianai wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A list of archeological sites with evidence that challenges the established theories.

Thank you for your comments in this thread. I’m learning quite a bit from them!

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#27

Post by rgrieselhuber »

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…

In general, once the Science is settled, it should never be questioned. It is often the work of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and bias-free institutions devoting time and resources into confirming hypotheses. Researchers from outside fields, in particular, should never be given a platform to question the experts in a given field.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#28

Post by aaaaaatttuyy »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #23
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…

I'd be much more forgiving of archeology and archeologists if they admitted what they didn't know, rather than presenting theories as facts. "Ritual Purposes" is the poster child for this. Site reports I've read from early medieval digs on artifacts rarely say "purpose unknown" or even "probably art", but instead say "ritual purposes". I understand that creating a theory for, say, early American migration, is useful…

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 archaeologists without any basis for such nasty claims. 'Ritual purposes' is indeed a trope, a trope that was recognized in the 1980s and that is now shied away from because it was applied uncritically. If ritual purposes is cited as an object's raison d'etre, then it is almost always described tentatively as such, like "probably for ritual purposes", or "under the circumstances of our limited data thus far, we describe it as such", because you are correct, there is very little way of knowing what actually happened.

And that's true of all archaeology, really. Archaeologists create the best narratives we can based on the limited evidence we've got. There is no single and knowable truth about the past, only our best attempts at understanding it. Archaeologists have accepted this for decades, you just seem out of the loop.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#29

Post by remir »

There's plenty of stuff out there, on Earth and in the universe, that we don't know about. I bet the majority of them we don't know that we don't know.

The more we'll discover, the more we'll realize the universe is weird. It's a good thing we can't discover stuff too fast, otherwise that would probably cause a lot of discomfort for a lot of people that are attached to certain notions.

Re: An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017)

#30

Post by mushbino »

aaaaaatttuyy wrote: post #11
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 ow…

>A brief examination of the materials did not support the claim of cultural artifacts or of bone processed by hominins. The assemblage from the site can be much better explained as a natural deposit, likely disturbed by other mastodons soon after the death of their comrade. Given the brevity of our study, it is important that future studies examine the data, fossils, and lithics to test the initial hypothesis. Additional excavations are also recommended.

Doesn't sound super conclusive.

Post reply on HN