Re: Not Enough Data


Gerrit Hanenburg wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

So, you're saying that my supposition that human intelligence,
consciousness, and communicativeness evolved gradually over millions of
years is speculative but that your supposition, for which there is no
positive evidence, that these abilities evolved instantaneously is not
wildly speculative? Right

I never maintained that "these abilities evolved instantaneously".

Yes, but that is because you don't maintain anything at all.


Science tells us to not let the evidence dictate conclusions. (IOW,
don't let the evidence lead you by the nose.)

Ultimately evidence is the answer to the questions posed by hypotheses
(for example (simplified): was A. afarensis a biped? Answer: yes.
Evidence: anatomy of postcranial fossil material and fossil
footprints). In that sense the evidence does dictate conclusions.

Is it not reasonable to assume that an animal that can construct tools/
weapons at 2.5 mya would also understand the basics of cultivation. Is
this not a proper use of evidence? Why not. Be explicit.

It's overinterpretation, inference beyond what the evidence can
provide.

This is just stupid, Gerrit. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret
the evidence as such. You have no evidence that disputes it. And it
answers questions which you just pretend to ignore.


I don't know what it required for Homo erectus to manufacture
an Acheulean handaxe. I suppose they needed a certain intuitive or
explicit knowledge of material properties, fracture mechanics,
geometry. Rather specific knowledge that may have taken a long time to
acquire and apparently went through a long period of stasis.

There is
no simple correlation between such a skill and other completely
different abilities in an extinct species.

How do you supposedly know this? It seems to me you are drawing
conclusions on lack of evidence.

The rather simple and static characteristics of the Acheulean toolkit
does not exactly suggest a very creative, inventive and exploratory
state of mind compared to the explosive development of toolkits in the
upper paleolithic.

Come on Gerrit. Listen to yourself. You have no real dispute with
anything I'm saying.


Is absence of evidence for a supposition evidence that the supposition
is wrong?

No.

Think about it. It's all just common sense here, Gerrit.
You can't dismiss the possibility of something that may or may not have
happpened in the past based on no evidence

No response.



Thus, until we find evidence of graves associated with Homo erectus,
we may assume that they didn't bury their dead (negative state).

Or we can assume that they did and that we haven't yet found this
evidence, right?

That position is impossible to falsify because the discovery of
evidence can be postponed indefinitely, whereas the opposite
assumption can be easily falsified be a single piece of evidence.
(the assumption that there are no black swans is falsified by a single
instance of a black swan, wheras the assumption that there exist black
swans can never be falsified by a lack of evidence for black swans).

This is just stupid. If we were doing a test your statement would
apply. But we are not.


They may have, but there's not even any evidence to make them suspect.

Sometimes we have no choice but to resort to common sense and reason.
Is it reasonable to assume that an animal that can fashion tools would
be unable to realize the common sense benefits of some form of
cultivation? It does not seem reasonable to me. Are you suggesting we
cannot apply reason to the data?

No response.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Toad is the Epitome of Stink Bombs
    ... The question is, if this so called evidence actally exists, will it be ... "The question may be asked what was the reason or motive for the ... motive need be proven by the prosecution, and circumstantial evidence ... and reject that interpretation which points to ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
    ... > ideological absolutes (rather than the weight of evidence). ... the reason to wage war was "Iraq has WMD". ... > cannot imagine trying to live on a savannah without at least an atlatl. ... >> back to quadrupedalism, ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... and even early humans in treeless ... "There is no such thing as negative evidence retard." ... "IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, ... parsimonious reason for all the apiths bones in the caves since leopard ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)