
An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017) - Reedx
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/
======
aaaaaatttuyy
I work at a site that claims to have evidence that would have similar
implications. The burden of proof is indeed very high, and for good reason.
You need to demonstrate that (a) the remains were the product of human
activity, (b) the context was secure, (c) dates samples are representative of
secure contexts, (d) samples are not contaminated and were processed
effectively, (e) the dating of the site as a whole is internally consistent.
Some material just doesn't lend itself to meeting that kind of criteria,
that's just how things are sometimes.

What this article should focus on is the work of Lauriane Bourgeon, who went
back to the material and tested it under revised methods that were
specifically oriented to meet these criteria. Archaeological knowledge does
not just result from one-man discoveries, but accretes over time as new ideas
become pervasive and we develop new ways of recognizing archaeological
phenomena.

All that stuff about monteverde and other similarly controversial work is just
red herring that distracts from the claims that the article is supposedly all
about. It says 'archaeologists are stuck in their ways! They are such extreme
orthodoxy gatekeeper morons!" But archaeology is actually one of the most
interdisciplinary domains of science and is most open to alternative
perspectives, based on my varied experiences at least. If the article wanted
to seriously tackle knowledge production in archaeology then it would actually
address how archaeologists think about and use evidence to draw narratives
about the past, which involves discursive knowledge and values, which could be
very well represented by Bourgeon's work as a case study. Or you can write a
thrilling blockbuster about the lone outsider who tore down the temple of doom
with his own two fists.

~~~
sandworm101
But we must still remember that archaeology in particular has been tainted by
various non-scientific ideas. It is an old discipline that, at times, was used
for political purposes. For instance this passage:

>>> Evidence had long suggested that humans first reached the Americas around
13,000 years ago, when Asian hunters crossed a now submerged landmass known as
Beringia, which joined Siberia to Alaska and Yukon during the last ice age.

Talk to the Inuit about that one, the assumption that 'primitive' people were
only ever able to walk over a land bridge rather than migrate along the ice
coast in boats. Many longstanding ideas, especially those most convenient to
questionable ethnographic ideas, need to be challenged. Frankly, I look very
closely at any idea that appeared in 1950s/60s highschool textbooks, such as
the above land bridge concept. The clovis/pre-clovis debate is so tied into US
politics (ie the challenge to the "first" in "first nations") that everyone
should be very careful.

~~~
aaaaaatttuyy
Yep, it does indeed have a nefarious past, and archaeologist tend to own this
criticism and have worked towards genuinely working in an anti-colonial spirit
(though there are still soooo many things that need to be improved upon).

Does this negate the work that has come out of archaeological research? Not
necessarily.

Also note that genetics has been harnessed extensively for political purposes,
especially in tandem with archaeology (see: eugenics). Does that de-legitimize
its genuine practical applications today, when conducted in an ethical,
respectful and regulated manner?

edited to convey what I actually meant to say, and mistyped due to being
drunk.

~~~
antonvs
The issue isn't unique to archaeology.

Another notorious example was the discovery of the bacteria that causes most
ulcers - the person who discovered that was vilified for at least a decade or
so.

The root problem is simple: most people treat what they learned during their
initial education as a kind of gospel, which they defend with the same fervour
as any faith. This defense relies on things like social shaming to repel ideas
that challenge their faith. This means that for an individual, stepping
outside the faith has consequences, which has the effect of keeping most
people in line and part of the defense against significant change.

Max Planck recognized this when he wrote, “A new scientific truth does not
triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it.”

------
ErotemeObelus
Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth
is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization
of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And
that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

~~~
everdev
Well, many have sought absolute truth and "I think therefore I am" or simply
"I am" is about as close as we've come.

Scientific truths are really useful for everyday life, but they're not
guaranteed to be true into eternity.

There are countless examples of scientific consensus being overturned with new
data, observations and experiments.

It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that
scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument.

~~~
pdonis
_> It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that
scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument._

One should not ignore scientific consensus as a suggestion of what beliefs to
examine.

But one _should_ ignore it as evidence in favor of a belief once you've
decided to examine it. Scientific consensus is not an argument at all.

------
contingencies
I did the map for
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_hum...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation_before_Clovis)
... visible at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-
the-a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-
americas.svg) ... mostly because I was amazed nobody had done one beforehand.

------
DoreenMichele
Sadly, this seems to be par for the course.

It took 50 years for plate tectonics to go from "some crackpot theory" to
accepted science. Wikipedia politely says the theory was _controversial and
not widely accepted_ when initially proposed.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)

One of my "favorites": They essentially murdered Semmelweis for suggesting
doctors should wash their hands. Never mind that he was a doctor in charge of
two clinics with studies to back up his claim, they threw him in an insane
asylum where he was badly beaten by the guards shortly after being locked up.
The beating directly led to his death shortly thereafter.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis)

It's a wonder we ever make any scientific progress given our track record in
that regard.

~~~
networkimprov
If Wegener had had the ocean floor topography and magnetometry data to point
to, I imagine the reception would have been warmer.

Lacking that, the proposal that a ball of rock has certain immense rocks that
float around on the remaining rock, and far enough to create vast oceans,
would sound quite crackpot today.

------
galaxyLogic
The scientific atmosphere, recalls Dillehay, was “clearly toxic and clearly
impeded science.”

------
remir
There's plenty of stuff out there, on Earth and in the universe, that we don't
know about. I bet the majority of them we don't know that we don't know.

The more we'll discover, the more we'll realize the universe is weird. It's a
good thing we can't discover stuff too fast, otherwise that would probably
cause a lot of discomfort for a lot of people that are attached to certain
notions.

------
red-indian
There's a great deal of sites with compelling evidence of being even much
older.

Topper SC tool site at 50kBP, San Diego butchered mastodon site at 130kBP,
Tlapacoya at 25kBP, many others.

~~~
aaaaaatttuyy
Yep, the Cerruti mastodon site in San Diego is not actually the result of
human activity. See the following references: \+
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.1589409?casa_token=qgj4uBoRT6UAAAAA:SZEnECmNhJJKkorQlKpCuay8_HanePLptW2bdv3KFRZFBXIvEdNQfCAflqgdxafIwzBGj2tU-
rSG) \+
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.1589663?casa_token=m4qp8HLG80sAAAAA:CBoAZcVqiwzIQTgDCXTGLEoxRH_H00Nw9hFbKWPxzT7F6MNM0Ec2-o0trscWm4VKyoePzzdorQAP)

Can't speak about the others, as I'm not familiar with them. I'm also not
gonna do all the critical thinking around here while im buzzed on a saturday
night. Do your own research.

~~~
mushbino
>A brief examination of the materials did not support the claim of cultural
artifacts or of bone processed by hominins. The assemblage from the site can
be much better explained as a natural deposit, likely disturbed by other
mastodons soon after the death of their comrade. Given the brevity of our
study, it is important that future studies examine the data, fossils, and
lithics to test the initial hypothesis. Additional excavations are also
recommended.

Doesn't sound super conclusive.

------
oblib
I really get a kick out of these kinds of stories. They help me stay humble
and openminded.

