General Discussions

[LP]

From 2016 :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016...ns/7481360

From 2018, not quite on topic, but close :

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/scienc...-australia

Yes, what we read are two sides of a debate about an investigation.

Having that debate about the investigation isn't my issue, my concern is that one side is politically ensuring the investigation and debate only goes in one direction. They are inhibiting or denying the right to ask the question. Shouldn't the truth be all we care about?

You would have also found those invested in the "Out of Africa" hypothesis now heavily defending that in the face of the 65K year data being disclosed now. It's politically unsavoury, because it affects so many histories, and also because some tout it for political purposes. But that 65K data is built on the same reliable methods as the counterargument, it's not a case of one technique being superior or another wrong. Much of the counterargument at this stage is that 65K isn't correct because we have already reported it as 50K, and they follow up comment is therefore I doubt 65K can be true!

I've sensed in this debate that below is the bigger issue, which puts the recent minority Australian research trying to hold sway against a tsunami of tenured specialists who have formed a "consensus";

The original study by Dr Adcock and his co-workers was broadly publicised internationally not only because it suggested there were humans in Australia before Aboriginal people but because it challenged a single African origin for all modern humans.

This bit in bold is looking a bit if not very shaky for the long term, the latest discoveries which seem to be surfacing with increasing frequency really suggest many pathways to modern human, but it's staunchly denied by some. The professors will eventually be made redundant by their students, that is when the refreshed data becomes mainstream.

So I weigh all this in the context of academic tenure as well, which is a double edged sword, so there is considerable resistance to new information that sometimes survives or can also make a career's worth of work redundant. That is a pretty fair "why risk it" motivation!

If 65K is true, it won't be the last time modern science built on 19th century natural-philosophy turns out to be full of bogus assumptions. True science is never right, it just gets closer to being correct with every validated revision.

[PaulP]

Science is sitting pretty sweet if you ask me. I accept that as a way of studying the physical world around us, it is the best we have. But it must be pretty nice to be in a position where you can be incorrect (which in essence is what you are saying), yet still have enormous prestige, but also reserve the right to change your mind when something better comes along. I'm being a little mischievous here, but hopefully you can see my point.

[Thryleon]

https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/in...-evolution\

Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.

I think Science finds new things to disagree about all the time, and whenever anyone wants to argue that point with me, I point to three points in time.

Erastothanes mapped the circumference of the earth using mathematics and shadows in 240 B.C.  Despite this knowledge, Galileo Galilei was labelled heretic as late as the 1600's A.D. for insinutating that the earth was round not flat, and despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, we have flat earthers in existence today, and if it suited certain political agendas, that would be the truth of the world.

ERGO, Scientific interpretation based on whats common shouldn't be trusted, and the data should be studied individually for people to make up their own minds.  The more someone tells me something is true, the less likely I am to believe it. 


[member=64]PaulP[/member] , I think the above speaks for what you have stated!!!

[Lods]

If the average 2020 student walked into a Science classroom when I went to school (1960s) armed with the knowledge of today and started sprouting some of his theories and facts the teacher would probably kick them out (after giving them 6 cuts of the cane for being a smart-arse prick).   ;D  ;D

[Gointocarlton]

If the average 2020 student walked into a Science classroom when I went to school (1960s) armed with the knowledge of today and started sprouting some of his theories and facts the teacher would probably kick them out (after giving them 6 cuts of the cane for being a smart-arse prick).   ;D  ;D

Instead today, the student gives the teacher 6 punches in the head and a kick up the ass.

[LP]

Science is sitting pretty sweet if you ask me. I accept that as a way of studying the physical world around us, it is the best we have. But it must be pretty nice to be in a position where you can be incorrect (which in essence is what you are saying), yet still have enormous prestige, but also reserve the right to change your mind when something better comes along. I'm being a little mischievous here, but hopefully you can see my point.

But obviously you can't be blatantly deceptive or stupidly in error, and you can't be denialist in the Trump style, of course you might only know you were wrong long after enough new knowledge is uncovered.

Science is accepting new knowledge has some foundational right to challenge your ideas, science is not denying that right dogmatically or refusing to even investigate the questions.

You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.

[PaulP]

But obviously you can't be blatantly deceptive or stupidly in error, and you can't be denialist in the Trump style, of course you might only know you were wrong long after enough new knowledge is uncovered.

Science is accepting new knowledge has some foundational right to challenge your ideas, science is not denying that right dogmatically or refusing to even investigate the questions.

You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.

Yes, I agree, and all important points.

[LP]

Yes, I agree, and all important points.

They are still trying to disprove Einstein to this day, he's only right for as long as they fail.

One day Einstein may well be consigned to the same fate as Newton, having delivered us a nice quaint approximation, that is close enough to right in 99.9% of daily cases.

[kruddler]

You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.

Tell that to Trump.
Deny, deny, deny and cut funding to anyone who proves he is wrong.

[kruddler]

They are still trying to disprove Einstein to this day, he's only right for as long as they fail!

Einstein wasn't always right.

He was wrong.....at least once.

What he was wrong about was when he said a statement he made was incorrect (Essentially about the universe expanding). He was actually correct to begin with. His doubting of himself was what he was wrong about.