That’s cute, i literally don’t know who these people are and i have yet to express support for any potential narrative.
You’re falling for too much social media, at least the godwin spin in your argument alludes as such.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven. And if it can be proven only a fool would choose not to agree. Can we agree on this as a baseline?
Other than that, we have to consider that we cant know what we don’t know, science is the measurement of reality but can we really understand reality?
Can any argument you make continue to stand against my brain in a jar style existentialism and optimistic nihilism? Surrender to the fact that the belief in facts does not make them true and that the true goal of science isn’t to answer any questions, (animals live a full life without) but to see how far we can take the art of questioning itself, exploring ourselves within the universe.
There are many angles i can weasel out on why there may be… and why no evidence of argiculture… but that wouldn’t be the point. The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can. Because honestly i feel the world needs more of that right now.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
Then why should I believe your suggestion that there were cultures that existed before the Younger Dryas with zero genetic evidence of domestication of plants or animals?
The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can
There was someone who recently told me that one shouldn’t believe in stuff that can’t be proven.
#1 You use “previously assumed not possible” as an excuse to stop exploring the idea. Come to conclusions based on your own critical mind, not because i said you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
#2 You don’t need to know nor believe anything in order to explore and derive knowledge from an idea or theory.
Exploring how aliens might have visited in the past : legaly distinct from : believing aliens exist ever
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
Re #2-
If there’s no evidence, there’s no knowledge to be derived. Also, theories have evidence and are testable. What you are talking about is a thought experiment. They’re not especially useful in archaeology.
Also-
you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
We’re talking about living genetic scientists, not dead archeologists. I realize that you’re part of the whole “you can’t trust scientists” crowd, but that doesn’t give you the right to pretend genetics doesn’t exist or is some outdated idea.
I swear i am not part of any ideologists group, least of all a science denying group. I am an OG lover of science and especially have a boner for archeology.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am not nor ever will tell people to think a certain way, just warn for limiting what can be conceive by blindly trusting dull old teachings.
The fact that the nature of my message is still not obvious is proof that the problem i am seeing is a very real one. People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves. In the age of misinformation to lager is more and more essential.
People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don’t think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn’t science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don’t know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions.
Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
what do you mean “believe in”? lots of people believe in economic theories that can’t tbe proven. some people believe in the goodness of mankind. everyone has some sort of myth (or likely many) that help them understand the world, regardless of how true or provable they are.
The way i use “believing” would be they regard it as truth.
There is some wiggle room there with agnostic believing making it distinct from “knowing” where you don’t acknowledge room for any self error.
I believe in science and i will use scientific statements as proof of truth but i cant say that i know science is truth because i know science has historically been wrong many times.
I am falling for propaganda?
That’s cute, i literally don’t know who these people are and i have yet to express support for any potential narrative.
You’re falling for too much social media, at least the godwin spin in your argument alludes as such.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven. And if it can be proven only a fool would choose not to agree. Can we agree on this as a baseline?
Other than that, we have to consider that we cant know what we don’t know, science is the measurement of reality but can we really understand reality?
Can any argument you make continue to stand against my brain in a jar style existentialism and optimistic nihilism? Surrender to the fact that the belief in facts does not make them true and that the true goal of science isn’t to answer any questions, (animals live a full life without) but to see how far we can take the art of questioning itself, exploring ourselves within the universe.
There are many angles i can weasel out on why there may be… and why no evidence of argiculture… but that wouldn’t be the point. The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can. Because honestly i feel the world needs more of that right now.
Then why should I believe your suggestion that there were cultures that existed before the Younger Dryas with zero genetic evidence of domestication of plants or animals?
There was someone who recently told me that one shouldn’t believe in stuff that can’t be proven.
#1 You use “previously assumed not possible” as an excuse to stop exploring the idea. Come to conclusions based on your own critical mind, not because i said you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
#2 You don’t need to know nor believe anything in order to explore and derive knowledge from an idea or theory.
Exploring how aliens might have visited in the past : legaly distinct from : believing aliens exist ever
Re #1-
Re #2-
If there’s no evidence, there’s no knowledge to be derived. Also, theories have evidence and are testable. What you are talking about is a thought experiment. They’re not especially useful in archaeology.
Also-
We’re talking about living genetic scientists, not dead archeologists. I realize that you’re part of the whole “you can’t trust scientists” crowd, but that doesn’t give you the right to pretend genetics doesn’t exist or is some outdated idea.
I swear i am not part of any ideologists group, least of all a science denying group. I am an OG lover of science and especially have a boner for archeology.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am not nor ever will tell people to think a certain way, just warn for limiting what can be conceive by blindly trusting dull old teachings.
The fact that the nature of my message is still not obvious is proof that the problem i am seeing is a very real one. People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves. In the age of misinformation to lager is more and more essential.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don’t think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn’t science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don’t know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
That is not science.
Science uses the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
what do you mean “believe in”? lots of people believe in economic theories that can’t tbe proven. some people believe in the goodness of mankind. everyone has some sort of myth (or likely many) that help them understand the world, regardless of how true or provable they are.
The way i use “believing” would be they regard it as truth.
There is some wiggle room there with agnostic believing making it distinct from “knowing” where you don’t acknowledge room for any self error.
I believe in science and i will use scientific statements as proof of truth but i cant say that i know science is truth because i know science has historically been wrong many times.