Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tilla the Hun (work)" data-source="post: 1196690" data-attributes="member: 14214">!I think you are getting close to an extremely important point here.Whereas we can all agree that we know 'something' about the past, history or prehistory, we should all also be able to agree that there is some degree of uncertainty in the details of the 'something' that we are looking at.When you start comparing what we were taught as youths in school to our children of today - you're forgetting the various age groups of gamers <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It would be better to compare what was taught in the seventies as history to what is being taught today, at the same grade level.  Restrict the comparison to history only so you can ignore the deterioration of the publich school system in the past few decades.It's startling the difference in 'fact' from then to now, but there's a bigger gulf the further back you go.It's been mentioned that the 'facts' change in observance of new findings, but this highlights what, in my opinion, is the primary issue at stake here.Conclusions drawn by experts and stated with authority are being accepted as FACT when in reality they are nothing more than OPINION.Deductive logic is a powerful tool.  So is the concept of 'Occam's Razor'.  However, they both have truly critical flaws that means they should only be used sparingly.  All too often, a respected historian or archaeologist will state a theoretical conclusion as a certainty.  Even when they do not, popular media takes it and runs with it as a certainty.  In reaction, text books are updated with the new 'fact' and re-published, and a new generation of children learn a completely different 'fact' than their parents knew.It's almost criminal.  The History Channel is often a primary culprit in presenting 'factual' theories, such as their view of an Earth 5 million years into the future!  There's entirely too many variables that can affect that projection, yet they present it as a conclusive 'fact'.When I was a child in the 80's, I was shown pictures of the Sphinx in Egypt - close up, detailed pictures - as part of my social sciences class history sessions.  I looked, examined, proclaimed that the weather marks on the sphinx looked like water erosion, odd for being in a desert or made by desert dwellers.  My teacher corrected me, told me in no uncertain terms that that was completely impossible, the facts were blah, blah, blah.In 2001, a noted geologist was requested by a friend to make an informal study of the erosion patterns.  He concluded they were indeed caused by rainfall, placing the date of the sphinx at a completely different time than was then widely accepted.This stood the whole egyptology world on its collective ear.  Many noted and respected egyptologists of decades of experience BLASTED this geologist as though he'd committed a carnal sin of blasphemy.  As a result, his findings are only sketchily published and not widely known.That's a classic case of scientists NOT having an open mind due to facts being presented to them through the school room and colleges that are not facts.So gather evidence before you reach conclusions.  When you reach conclusions, present them as THEORY not as complete facts.  This is what is wrong in our perceptions of ancient history and prehistory.  We are too inculcated to accepting potential conclusions as fact from modern history to view ancient history/prehistory any differently.  We seek finite facts of specific detail and we cannot have them.Carbond dating is, at it's best, +/- 2000 years on it's dating.  If you're attempting to determine climate and weather patterns, that's going to throw your 'deductive logic' off.  If you base further conclusions as to potential dieting and toolmaking capability off these results, you're almost committing a crime!And Carbon dating is supposedly one of the more 'reliable' dating methods out there.So I stand with the original issue- We don't know JACK about history, and what we do know is so heavily biased it's getting more and more difficult to get to know Jack in any kind of detail.That's not to say the mounds of evidence are piling higher and higher.  That evidence gives us indications of Jack and what his life was like - but as the mounds grow higher, so too do the egos and the reputations of the conclusion drawers to the point of ridiculousness.  Those are the people that adopt a position and defend it against all new-comers and new evidence.  That's not a scientist.  That's just someone looking for fame.</blockquote>

Verification