you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Something about this is fishy. I don't know enough anthropology to even understand the finding or implications. But it just doesn't bode well.

[–]knowbodyelse 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

our picture of the past is anything but complete and settled, despite the authoritarian certainty of our history teachers.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can appreciate that our picture of human history is incomplete. The authoritarian certainty of history teachers is drastically different then the understanding of professional scientists. Not that there isn't room for improvement in the science, by definition there is, but these bombshell findings require a healthy amount of necessary skepticism.

[–]knowbodyelse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

yes. I feel the same way about prehistory. we call it prehistory because we don't have an accurate appraisal of the state of affairs.

[–]DirewolfGhost 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We call it prehistory because we have NO appraisal of ANYTHING. History is simply what was written, not what was written accurately.

[–]juggernaut8 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

History is simply what was written, not what was written accurately.

An important distinction indeed.

[–]juggernaut8 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The museum exists, the professor exists, no one has disputed the findings so far. The question you should be asking yourself is are you being selectively skeptical or merely skeptical.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Let me first distinguish between my skepticism of the popular science, and a healthy level of professional skepticism from scientific peers. I will admit I am selectively skeptical when it comes to anything outside of my field. As I mentioned I don't know enough anthropology to even understand the finding or implications. I just have a gut reaction, which is admittedly selective and ignorant.

[–]juggernaut8 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My point is that skepticism should be a default position when presented with any information, one should try to avert the tendency to be selectively skeptical. This is important these days because 'skeptics' (who are in fact dogmatists) have perverted actual skepticism. We should be careful not to fall into that same trap.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see. Good point.