Carry On Palaeontology

[pantodragon]

Assumptions litter palaeontology, as illustrated beautifully in the book, The Complete World of Human Evolution, written by “two of the world’s foremost scientists in the field”.

These are only a few of the assumptions they quite happily, even proudly, state:

1) All living apes and humans have a set of characteristics in common --- no tail, an appendix etc --- and it is a reasonable ASSUMPTION that their common ancestors also had them.

2) It is an ASSUMPTION that similarity in characters is based on common inheritance.

3) It is possible to make ASSUMPTIONS about the behaviour of fossil apes by studying the behaviour of living apes.

4) Olduvai: Bed I contains fossils of early hominins (Homo habilis and Paranthropus boisei) which are ASSUMED to be the same age as Bed I.

5) The fossil animals in Bed I of Olduvai are similar to some found in beds which contain fossils of Paranthropus boisei in northern Kenya. These fossil animals of northern Kenya are therefore ASSUMED to be the same age as those at Olduvai.

6) The use of carbon-14 to date fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of a constant rate of production of carbon-14 in the past.

7) Palaeo-ecology: The principles of ecology are ASSUMED to apply to palaeo-ecology i.e. it is ASSUMED the principles that apply to modern environments also apply to “fossil” environments.

8) Of the two species of hominins found in Beds I and II (Olduvai), the later species was ASSUMED to be the toolmaker (referring to tools found in both beds along with the fossil hominins).

9) The ASSUMPTION that the last common ancestor of apes and humans did not have a tail is based on the fact that all living apes and humans lack a tail.

…………………………..etc. There are so many "assumptions" that one could almost believe this to be a religion: the House of the Assumption.

Palaeontologists clearly see no problem with the fact that their discipline is based entirely on ASSUMPTIONS. Its very foundations are dangerously unstable, riddled with rot, yet palaeontologists carry on regardless --- the Sid James, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey and Joan Sims school of palaeoanthropology.

Edited April 27, 2013 by pantodragon

[freetoroam]

Well without them, there would be no assumptions at all.

[Swede]

6) The use of carbon-14 to date fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of a constant rate of production of carbon-14 in the past.

Grossly incorrect on two counts:

1) Radiocarbon dating can only be utilized for the dating of organic specimens. A fully permineralized osteological/floral element no longer contains organic material.

2) The fluctuations in atmospheric ¹⁴C were recognized and initially published at a quite early date (de Vries 1958, 1959). This is only nine years after the publication of the radiocarbon methodology by Libby in 1949. The recognition of these fluctuations led to the advent of calibration studies and programs, which have reached an appreciable level of accuracy and are continuously being further refined (see CALIB, Ox Cal).

.

[pantodragon]

Well without them, there would be no assumptions at all.

Oh, I don't know. I think I'm pretty good with assumptions myself: everyone on this forum is knitting with only one needle; there's nothing you can do on the internet which you couldn't do by snail; all scientists are two cards short of a full pack..................

[pantodragon]

Grossly incorrect on two counts:

1) Radiocarbon dating can only be utilized for the dating of organic specimens. A fully permineralized osteological/floral element no longer contains organic material.

2) The fluctuations in atmospheric ¹⁴C were recognized and initially published at a quite early date (de Vries 1958, 1959). This is only nine years after the publication of the radiocarbon methodology by Libby in 1949. The recognition of these fluctuations led to the advent of calibration studies and programs, which have reached an appreciable level of accuracy and are continuously being further refined (see CALIB, Ox Cal).

.

Since I was merely quoting, it would seem that your experts disagree with my experts.........so what's new then?

[Swede]

Since I was merely quoting, it would seem that your experts disagree with my experts.........so what's new then?

And whom, pray tell, were you quoting? Citations please. No one even remotely familiar with radiocarbon dating would make the claim that fully permineralized specimens can be dated using this methodology.

.

[Rlyeh]

2) It is an ASSUMPTION that similarity in characters is based on common inheritance.

It is a FACT we share genes. Perhaps you'd like to explain how genes are passed on without inheritance?

[pantodragon]

Another wee gem from “The Complete World of Human Evolution”:

The concepts of Evolutionary Psychology are being used to explain palaeontological puzzles, such as the appearance of enormous handaxes. These tools are so big that they are actually useless as axes. What then, ask the psychologists, could they have been used for? And some have come up with the suggestion that they had a social function: they were a male status symbol and would have had “a selective value in terms of reproductive success”.

This interpretation is, of course, the sort of nonsense academics come up with because they rely on their intellect, on reason and logic to do their thinking. And they are far too serious to boot. It doesn’t cross their minds that ancient people might actually have had a sense of humour.

In the first instance, just think about it: what female is going to select a mate who can’t make a tool that is functional? It’s not going to be much help with chopping firewood, now, is it? She and the kids will freeze to death and probably starve too.

But practicalities aside, have Evolutionary Psychologists never watched Life of Brian? Have they never heard of Bigus Dickus? Or imagine these enormous handaxes used as props in a Carry On Cave Man film. Imagine them hung round the waists of Sid James and Charles Hawtrey, and then you’ll really find out what these gigantic handaxes were about!!!!

And the above is, actually, a serious point. What makes caricature so funny is that it is accurate --- it doesn’t miss and hit the wall. If palaeontologists really want insight into human nature, they should be watching the Carry On films and Life of Brian and applying those concepts to the past!

PS: A relative of mine (called Alex) was nicknamed Big Axe. His son was subsequently dubbed Hatchet, Son of Axe.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Merged- pantodragon,

There is no need to start a new topic every time you post. If you are continuing a subject you have already started please make additional posts in that topic.

Thank you

[pantodragon]

And whom, pray tell, were you quoting? Citations please. No one even remotely familiar with radiocarbon dating would make the claim that fully permineralized specimens can be dated using this methodology.

.

Why are you making such a big thing about this? Even if I misquoted, (I'm not going to re-red the book to check), all it means is that palaeontology is built on only 571 instead of 572 assumptions! (Please don't be TOO literal here. I've probably wildly underestimated.)

[pantodragon]

It is a FACT we share genes. Perhaps you'd like to explain how genes are passed on without inheritance?

You'd need to explain to the experts I'm quoting from. Actually, you need to think a little more on the subject yourself. The issue is not whether I can give an alternative explanation about how characteristics are passed on, the issue that an assumption has been made. Which it has, even i9f you can't see it.

[Raczack]

Why are you making such a big thing about this? Even if I misquoted, (I'm not going to re-red the book to check), all it means is that palaeontology is built on only 571 instead of 572 assumptions! (Please don't be TOO literal here. I've probably wildly underestimated.)

So you are forcing us to assume that you actually have sources? We have far less reason to make that assumption than we do to any of the assumptions in your original post.

[pantodragon]

So you are forcing us to assume that you actually have sources?

I'm not forcing you to do anything. Just like the next person, I can lie. Unlike the next person, I can also tell the truth.................However,there is no real problem if you know where to look: " Even with truths that lie too deep for taint".

[Swede]

Why are you making such a big thing about this? Even if I misquoted, (I'm not going to re-red the book to check), all it means is that palaeontology is built on only 571 instead of 572 assumptions! (Please don't be TOO literal here. I've probably wildly underestimated.)

1) In recent history you have presented quiet a number of soliloquies based upon a notable lack of understanding in regards to the matters upon which you choose to espouse.

2) While your ill-informed comments would not appear to be direct quotes (far too erroneous), the direct utilization of the significant thoughts of others is also considered to be a form of plagiarism. Thus, citations are a requisite. Plagiarism is not a matter to be taken lightly, whether on these pages or, more particularly, within professional realms.

3) Your lack of understanding in regards to radiocarbon dating is merely one of the more glaring examples of your lack of knowledge/understanding in regards to your various poorly constructed "critiques".

4) As another example, the datings utilized in the interpretations of Olduvai are not assumptions, but are based upon K-Ar/Ar-Ar dating along with osteological, environmental, and lithic analysis data, to name but a few.

5) Your understandings in regards to archaeological research are yet another example of your profoundly lacking knowledge base.

My personal time is often quite limited. However, should you choose to select specific points, one at a time, these can be addressed and qualified references provided. By proceeding in such a manner, it would be hoped that you will be provided with information that will allow you to avoid further personal embarrassment.

.

[FurthurBB]

Oh, I don't know. I think I'm pretty good with assumptions myself: everyone on this forum is knitting with only one needle; there's nothing you can do on the internet which you couldn't do by snail; all scientists are two cards short of a full pack..................

I guess when you only have 2 cards in your deck everyone else seems a little short.

[pantodragon]

1) In recent history you have presented quiet a number of soliloquies based upon a notable lack of understanding in regards to the matters upon which you choose to espouse.

2) While your ill-informed comments would not appear to be direct quotes (far too erroneous), the direct utilization of the significant thoughts of others is also considered to be a form of plagiarism. Thus, citations are a requisite. Plagiarism is not a matter to be taken lightly, whether on these pages or, more particularly, within professional realms.

3) Your lack of understanding in regards to radiocarbon dating is merely one of the more glaring examples of your lack of knowledge/understanding in regards to your various poorly constructed "critiques".

4) As another example, the datings utilized in the interpretations of Olduvai are not assumptions, but are based upon K-Ar/Ar-Ar dating along with osteological, environmental, and lithic analysis data, to name but a few.

5) Your understandings in regards to archaeological research are yet another example of your profoundly lacking knowledge base.

My personal time is often quite limited. However, should you choose to select specific points, one at a time, these can be addressed and qualified references provided. By proceeding in such a manner, it would be hoped that you will be provided with information that will allow you to avoid further personal embarrassment.

.

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs. They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle, result: beetlejuice! They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!! .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand". Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it. And academics are pulling a fast one. If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.

[Copasetic]

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs. They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle, result: beetlejuice! They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!! .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand". Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it. And academics are pulling a fast one. If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.

Dunning and Kruger

Stunning example.

[pantodragon]

Dunning and Kruger

Stunning example.

"Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
   
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
   
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
   
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."
   

This is a wonderful example of reason thinking it understands things. Just because all that sounds so rational doesn't make it right. And it's not right. It's rubbish. Human beings are not that simple. And just because they use/invent big words like metacognitive or anosognosia or Shakespeare --- oops, no, that was just a reference --- geez, I wish these people could organise their thinking, follow threads and focus --- does not mean they understand anything. They're just playing power games. This is an examp[le of a beetlecrusher.

May I offer a little illumination here? (You may quote me to D and K, I won't accuse them of stealing my ideas, I am perfectly willing to give them a hand when they need it.)

First, a quote from David Hume: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. I would quibble with the "ought only to be" but the fact is that people are ruled by their emotions and their judgements of others are emotional rather than rational. So, there is no ONE way in which incompetent people will estimate either themselves or other people.

Secondly, there is a well known phenomenon: when people look at the world, what they see is a reflection of themselves. From this, one can conclude that the theory of D and K reflects themselves and no one else i.e. it is they who tend to overestimate their own level of skill etc.

Thirdly, the most important factors in being able to make any sort of accurate assessment of other people is detachment and self-awareness, but emphasise detachment. This is different from objectivity. So, the only way anyone of any level of competence can make any accurate and realistic assessment of either themselves or others, is if they have achieved high levels of detachment and self-awareness.

Edited May 2, 2013 by pantodragon

[Rlyeh]

You'd need to explain to the experts I'm quoting from. Actually, you need to think a little more on the subject yourself. The issue is not whether I can give an alternative explanation about how characteristics are passed on, the issue that an assumption has been made. Which it has, even i9f you can't see it.

Genes are passed on through inheritance, in order for different species to share genes they therefore need to share a common ancestor.

If that is an assumption, then so is you possessing a brain.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs. They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle, result: beetlejuice! They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!! .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand". Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it. And academics are pulling a fast one. If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

But you see the difference is the academics support their conclusions, pantodragon on the other hand pulls conclusions out of her behind as demonstrated in "pantodragon's world in a nutshell".

When ever you post the BS detector goes wild.

[Copasetic]

"Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
   
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
   
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
   
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."
   

This is a wonderful example of reason thinking it understands things. Just because all that sounds so rational doesn't make it right. And it's not right. It's rubbish. Human beings are not that simple. And just because they use/invent big words like metacognitive or anosognosia or Shakespeare --- oops, no, that was just a reference --- geez, I wish these people could organise their thinking, follow threads and focus --- does not mean they understand anything. They're just playing power games. This is an examp[le of a beetlecrusher.

May I offer a little illumination here? (You may quote me to D and K, I won't accuse them of stealing my ideas, I am perfectly willing to give them a hand when they need it.)

First, a quote from David Hume: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. I would quibble with the "ought only to be" but the fact is that people are ruled by their emotions and their judgements of others are emotional rather than rational. So, there is no ONE way in which incompetent people will estimate either themselves or other people.

Secondly, there is a well known phenomenon: when people look at the world, what they see is a reflection of themselves. From this, one can conclude that the theory of D and K reflects themselves and no one else i.e. it is they who tend to overestimate their own level of skill etc.

Thirdly, the most important factors in being able to make any sort of accurate assessment of other people is detachment and self-awareness, but emphasise detachment. This is different from objectivity. So, the only way anyone of any level of competence can make any accurate and realistic assessment of either themselves or others, is if they have achieved high levels of detachment and self-awareness.

Uh yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[Swede]

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs. They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle, result: beetlejuice! They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!! .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand". Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it. And academics are pulling a fast one. If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.

The defensive nature of your response is not particularly uncommon amongst those that have little or no understanding of scientific philosophy, theory, methodology, practice, or research. This lack of understanding is generally based upon a lack of information or, to put it more bluntly, ignorance.

Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Rather than wallowing in a self-imposed miasma, you may wish to challenge your beliefs and capabilities by expanding your informational base.

.

[pantodragon]

The defensive nature of your response is not particularly uncommon amongst those that have little or no understanding of scientific philosophy, theory, methodology, practice, or research. This lack of understanding is generally based upon a lack of information or, to put it more bluntly, ignorance.

Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Rather than wallowing in a self-imposed miasma, you may wish to challenge your beliefs and capabilities by expanding your informational base.

.

One day when I was peeling potatoes at the sink, my brother picked up one of the potatoes and asked “How’s that for a good Scottish potato, then?” To which I replied “Do you mean the one in my hand or the one on top of your head?” I am tempted to make a play on words along those same lines with your name, Swede, but I shall refrain……….

You are absolutely, completely, totally, utterly, indisputably (etc) wrong to say that a lack of understanding is “generally based upon a lack of information”. This demonstrates a complete failure to UNDERSTAND the difference between understanding and information. But that is only to be expected of scientists/academics. An inability to understand is but one of the many symptoms of dysfunction brought about by their abuse of, by their love of self-harming, their own minds.

So, your suggestion that I effect a cure for my supposed ignorance by expanding my “informational base” is not only utter hogwash, but would, and does, lead to mental dysfunction. Only someone who is ignorant, someone who understands nothing about how the mind works, would suggest it.

Information is trivial. The mind is, however, naturally equipped to develop UNDERSTANDING. This is NOT achieved by doing what science and academia do: deconstructing the world and creating vast featureless oceans of information in which people are all at sea and where, lost, exhausted and unable to remain buoyant, they drown. Understanding is achieved by acquiring abilities through experience and enables one to see the bigger picture --- which is why I can and you can’t.

As to being defensive? Geez! One minute I’m accused of being defensive, the next of going on the offence…….is there no end to it?!!! I really wish you people on this forum would make up your minds.

PS: where on earth did you dig up the phrase: “expanding your informational base”? That’s a book-swallower’s phrase if ever I heard it. Did no one ever tell you that real people don’t talk like that?