Comments on: Neandertals Died Out Earlier Than Previously Thought

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:01:07 +0000

I think one main issue in science and i know some of my collegues feel this, is that the media tends to report things as definates, they never make it clear that this is just one theory of a number. I’m a bit of a processionalist, in that i tend to prefer to count on the solid evidence i can find and tend to rubbish out and out theory with no strong evidence, such as the statement that this report made. I have a collegue who is very much into ethnographic analysis in archaeology, were always arguing.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13:23 +0000

Paul78: and I get yours.

To wit: There are things to look at, all the time.

I oversimplified the case in the interest of making the point. Once remains, artefacts et al (and you’re right, ruins aren’t so common in archaeology), are found, they can be analyzed. Analyzed, that is, according to the best technology and applications of same known at the time. Advances in technology can provide new ways to look at “old” (none of them really are “new,” are they) things. And some of that is going on here.

The hazard is in jumping ahead because you have X information…when the amount needed to truly solve the puzzle is Y. It’s a huge temptation in sciences in which processes can’t be observed happening but have to be inferred based on evidence that they occurred in the past.

But who wants to wait for absolute final proof, eh? I sure don’t. In fact, I don’t think any of us will be here for that. (Look at how long it’s taken us to get evidence for 5% of the primates that ever lived.) I’d like to hazard the guess. It’s understandable that scientists want to say, right now, here is what we *think.* As long as that is what they say.

Which brings me to what mystery_man said on another blog some time back: Science is a set of provisional truths, backed by evidence. That “provisional” is way key. Way.

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Thu, 19 May 2011 15:39:56 +0000

I have to point out in my line of work ruins are few and far between, its mainly artefacts, remains and soil features. When it comes to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic occupation sites are even more rare and hard to distinguish. But i do get your point.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:17:06 +0000

Different sciences have different worldviews, I guess, based on their access to information.

A biologist would never – well, almost never, it has happened – accept a new species on the basis of a photograph. Astronomers? That’s all they have. We aren’t going to travel to the nearest planets, let alone stars, any time real soon. So astronomers work from photos (and other indirect information), and in fact depend on them almost totally. So much so that photos by amateurs lead, in short order, to new discoveries. An amateur booted Pluto out of the Planet Club (even though many of us still slip Pluto drinks out the back door when he passes by on his orbit, and hope minds will change). Think an amateur photo would confirm the sasquatch? An amateur MOVIE didn’t.

Paleontologists only have bones, and archaeologists ruins (many complete with bones). So, they deduce based on the little they have. It has been speculated that 95% of all primates that have existed have left no evidence. So, what is accepted as the human lineage is accepted based on evidence at which a working field biologist would sneer.

Maybe that’s why they jump to conclusions so often. Most days are slow news days; and news only comes with new bones.

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:13 +0000

I often say we only have parts of the puzzle, but so many scientists want the theories to be true so much they ignore things, especially the contradictory information.

By: Mibs

Mibs — Thu, 19 May 2011 04:58:37 +0000

The findings of these researchers is interesting but hardly conclusive for the entire Neanderthal species with regard to the amount of time they had before disappearing from the historic timeline. I don’t see how they can conclude the amount of years they had to interact with humans. With so many undiscovered human sites, as well as the hundreds of thousands of sites that vanished over the millennium I don’t see how they can use their findings as the conclusive data stamp.

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:21:03 +0000

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth DWA, how does one skeletal specimen within the known timeline of Neanderthals, and in the Caucasus’s affect the later dates in southern Europe. Were told to be careful some C14 dating facilities are a bit crap, can’t remember if Oxford is one?

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:37:19 +0000

Wait a minute.

They’re basing this presumption on ONE find?

That’s no more warranted than the no-fossils-so-it-isn’t-real schtick.

This is a prime example of science going off the rails and not behaving like science.