you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vigte[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Cool story right?

Except... only one of these two can be the skeleton of our ancestor - and only one can be the "first to walk upright".

Which is it?

Australopithecus Prometheus or Australopithecus Anamensis?

My problem is that no "scientist" can be omnipotent or all knowing - and thus, cannot see the conflicting realities they are spinning by not being up to date on the cutting edge of their field.

AI sorting of data is not new but honestly, if Aaron Schwartz could download all of JStor all that time ago - why are we still suffering through the intellectual poverty of implicitly trusting a labcoat to be up to date and well informed, when it's almost never the case?

Edit: Sure, everyone wants their discovery to be the greatest find - but that's just the typical arrogance that befalls many. Too many people use the excuse of "science" to (also) back up what they think (rather than what they know).

Science appears as a tool for unraveling mystery but is double-edged, as the concept of "doxa" or (un-knowing) can easily get lost in the concrete terms is demands of its followers.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why we still got monkeys?

[–]Ian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why are there dogs when wolves? Check mate atheists.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)