And BTW, IMHO it seems to support the general idea of the appearance of
"intelligence" in mankind suddenly (de novo) instead of gradually. No?
<!-- body="start" -->
I am reading a fascinating book entitled The Lost Civilizations of
the<br>
Stone Age by Richard Rudgley. With a title like this one would
expect<br>
discussions of Atlantis, Mu and alien space craft. But it isn't
like<br>
that at all. I learned of this book in a review in Nature last fall
and<br>
finally got it for my birthday. It is a serious work written by an<br>
anthropologist who is at Oxford. Rudgley won the British Museum
Award<br>
for his last book.<br>
The chapter I am going discuss concerns the origin of scientific<br>
thinking. By scientific thinking one means the proposing of
hypotheses,<br>
the gathering of data, the comparing of the data to various
hypotheses<br>
with the resultant rejection of hypotheses failing to match the data
and<br>
the modification of hypothese to fit the data. Amazingly, this type
of<br>
thinking has been on earth for a very, very long time. <br>
This type of thinking is precisely what a hunter engages in. So we
can<br>
look to the fossil record for the earliest example of actual hunting
and<br>
know that they were thinking in a scientific vein. The earliest
proof<br>
of hunting occurs 400,000 years ago. At Schoningen Germany, wooden<br>
spears were found which were balanced the same as an olympic javelin.
<br>
The spear was designed to be thrown which means the men were<br>
hunting.[Robin Dennell, "The World's Oldest Spears," Nature 385(Feb.
27,<br>
1997), p. 767;Hartmut Thieme, "Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears
form<br>
Germany," Nature, 385(Feb. 27,1997), p. 810]<br>
<p>
How do we know the type of thinking that went into hunting? Because
of<br>
the nature of animal tracking. Man the hunter must first be man the<br>
tracker. In order to get close enough to throw a spear he must find
the<br>
quarry. To do so requires the postulating hypotheses and the
comparison<br>
of them with new data and then the modification of the theory. For<br>
instance a tracker may look at the foot prints and postulate that
the<br>
animal went to the east. This is because of the direction of the
feet.<br>
He can look at the damp urine patch and know the sex of the animal
and<br>
if the animal passed by several hours ago or very recently. How can<br>
youknow the sex? In most quadrupeds if the urine patch is between
the<br>
fore and hind footprints, it is a male, if behind all feet, then it is
a<br>
female. The tracker must examine broken twigs to see if the breaks
are<br>
fresh or old. Spit on the leaves means that the animals was passing<br>
through within the past 30 minutes or so since otherwise the spit
would<br>
be dry. Feces tell the age of the animal, and also how recently it<br>
passed. Warm feces indicate a few minutes have elapsed and the
quarry<br>
is near.<br>
<p>
As new data comes in, the hunter must make changes to his mental map
of<br>
where the game is. Jones and Konner who studied the hunting
techniques<br>
of the San !Kung wrote:<br>
<p>
"Such an intellective process is familiar to us from detective
stories<br>
and indeed also from science itself. Evidently it is a basic feature
of<br>
human mental life. It would be surprising indeed if repeated
activation<br>
of hypotheses, trying them out against new data, integrating them
with<br>
previously known facts, and rejecting ones which do not stand up,
were<br>
habits of mind peculiar to western scientists and detectives.
!Kung<br>
behavior indicates that, on the contrary, the very way of life for
which<br>
the human brain evolved required them. That they are brought to<br>
impressive fruition by the technology of scientists and the leisure
of<br>
novelists should not be allowed to persuade us that we invented
them.<br>
Man is the only hunting mammal with so rudimentary a sense of smell
that<br>
he could only have come to successful hunting through intellectual<br>
evolution." Cited by Rudgley p. 112<br>
<p>
And the errors in logic they made ore the same as the ones we make.
They<br>
further state:<br>
<p>
"The accuracy of observation, the patience, and the experiences of<br>
wildlife they have had and appreciate are enviable. The sheer,
elegant<br>
logic of deductions from tracks would satiate the msot avid
crossword<br>
fan or reader of detective stories. THe objectivity is also enviable
to<br>
scientists who beleive that they can identify it and that the
progress<br>
of science is totally dependent upon it. Even the poor theorisation
of<br>
our !Kung left one uneasy; their 'errors,' the errors of 'Stone Age<br>
savages,' are exactly those still made today by many highly
educated<br>
western scientists.. We have gained little or nothing in ability or<br>
intellectual brilliance scince the Stone Age; our gains have all been
in<br>
the accumulation of records of our intellectual acheivements. We
climb<br>
on each other's backs; we know more and understand more, but our<br>
intellects are no better." Cited by Rudgley p. 115.<br>
===
"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"
"Ud. apoya el punto de vista predominante, pero, @por cuanto tiempo supone que
seguira' siendo predominante? ... Ud. tan solo puede decir que mi punto de vista
es anticuado; pero muy pronto el suyo sera lo mismo." Clive Staples Lewis.
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com