Hello Glenn,
Don seems to have understood accurately what I have been trying to say, and
I hope his posts will make sense of mine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton
To: Adrian Teo; 'Asa@Calvin. Edu '
Sent: 4/20/2002 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: How and when did we become "men"?
Glenn: The effort of some of these sites is far more than required for
showing
off
[afterall why take a showing off trophy deep into a cave where no one
will
see it?] At Bruniquel, the Neanderthals went deep into the cave, totally
out
of the range of light and that is dangerous, requires effort. They had
to
plan lighting (lamps or torches) and take enough to never run out of
light
or they would be lost forever. And then they had to bring the bear body
with
them. Bears are not found deep underground, so it is unlikely that they
found a bear there as deep as they were. Even bears in cave rarely go
into
the total darkness of the deeper cave. They also need to find their way
back
to the surface. The Bruniquel people then built a square structure and
burned the bear there. Fires are not very likely underground in the
total
dark of a cave even if a bear gets trapped there. And they had to have
enough fuel in the form of wood to burn the bear. One simply doesn't
touch a
torch to a bear fur and expect the bear to be incinerated. These were
the
days before gasoline you know.
AT: YOu are quite possibly correct, but Don also presents an interesting and
plausible alternative. The argument by analogy works both in your favor and
against you. On the one hand, yes, it makes sense to say that the bone
arrangement is analogous to what is observed in ancient religious
ceremonies. On the other hand, the behavior of showing-off or making
creative arrangement is equally ubiquitous and by analogy, these are
possiblilities that should also be considered.
> Sure, it could have
>been for religiouse purposes, but the language of the reports you cited
>gives the false impression of a high degree of confidence that I thnk
is
>unwarranted.
GLenn: Yeah, because they have examined the evidence and you havn't. This
is a
case of the non-expert, who hasn't actually read the articles, much less
excavated the site, telling the expert what he found. That seems to be
a
bit over the top. One really should listen to the guy who did the study
unless one has clear evidence refuting what he says.
AT: Like you admitted in an earlier post, there is some degree of
uncertainty. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that could clearly
discriminate between two hypotheses, the alternative remains viable. Yes, I
fully admit that I am no expert in this field, but what I am critiquing is
the logic. I am asking to understand why these other hypotheses have been
discarded - what is it that gives these scientists the confidence to reject
all other explanations except the religious one. What you have presented in
detail is why these should be considered religious behavior, but you have
thus far offered little explantion for why the alternatives are unlikely.
>In fact, such unwarranted confidence is an indication of a
>strong bias. It would be perhaps be more helpful if they could give
some
>rough estimate (and not even necessarily numerical) of the level of
>certainty that comes with these conclusions.
GLenn: Probability is never done when we discuss the Bible or concerning
Washington
crossing the Delaware so why are you asking for something no one else
does
in any equivalent field? I suggest it is to give cover for the denial
of
evidence that you don't like.
AT: Again I will pose to you the same question that I did earlier: how does
this exercise in mind-reading (i.e. inferring my motivation) further your
argument? There is no evidence that I don't like. I am in fact quite happy
to admit that neanderthals could very well be fully human. I have no hidden
agenda that you seem to find in every sentence I write. You may very well be
right, and I am perfectly fine with that.
>AT: I don't know Binford, but I would not go to his extreme. I am not
>casually discounting these evidence that are in fact consistent with
the
>religious practice hypothesis, but rather, asking to see if there are
>perhaps other pluasible explnations that have not been ruled out. You
seem
>to be way too defensive in your reaction to my post.
Glenn: The first thing to do is read the articles if you are serious in
doubting
them. To do anything less is to avoid the responsibility of the
researcher.
Go read the articles and then decide.
AT: The last I checked, this is a forum for anybody interested in the issues
of science and religion. My understanding is that it is to be a fairly
casual environment where people are free to think creatively, ask questions,
and challenge ideas. I am not a researcher in this area, don't have the time
to do careful research into the what's been discovered in the past few
years, and am NOT looking to publish a competing hypothesis. If the latter
was true, than it would indeed be my responsibility to do the leg-work.
However, as a subscriber to this forum, I am simply bring up concerns I have
in this discussion. If my concerns are unfounded, show me, or if you think
it would be a waste of your time, ignore me. But do not imply that I do not
have the right to raise doubt just because I haven't read all the papers you
have. Logic is logic. And why is it irresponsible for me to raise concerns
in this *informal* forum even if I haven't read the research? I have the
information about them from you and I accept that. I am not seeking to
publish, nor am I saying that these scientists are absolutely wrong and I am
right and portaying myself as an expert, nor am I challenging your
credibility. Neither am I offering my opinion as that of an expert in the
field. I have simply accepted the evidence you provided at face value and
raised a concern.
>Glenn:I would ask why one would doubt the Chauvet Cave example I cited?
>
>AT: So that one does not readily allow one's bias to creep in.
But you are showing your bias by never having actually read the articles
and
books on these sites. Go read the articles.
AT: Raising doubt is alway a good practce in science. I am not fully
confident that my concerns are legitimate, but I raise them anyway because
at this point, it seems that they are. By doing so, I am allowing my
reasoning to be examined by others like yourself and allowing you to show me
where I am wrong. But you seem to be ready to dismiss me as being
irresponsible and biased just because I dare question your conclusions. Was
I rude to you in my initial post?
>Glenn: Why else
>would people take bear skulls (only skulls) into a dark cave and place
>one
>of them on a big rock in the center of the cave starting a fire behind
>it?
>
>AT: Wait a minute! This is a highly suspect argument. Just beacsue
>one can't
>imaigne it to be otherwise does not automatically permit one to
conclude
>that therefore there are no other possibilities.
Glenn: The doubt anything that we can't overcome argument. While logically
true, I
can apply your methodology to historical temples. Just because someone
says
that it was used for religious purposes doesn't make it so. Do you
beleive
every thing you read in the press?
AT: I think you have really missed my point. I am not adopting a position of
total skepticism. I am saying that your argument is faulty. IT goes like
this:
I cannot imagine X. Therefore X must not be true.
I cannot imagine any other reason why "people take bear skulls (only skulls)
into a dark cave and place one of them on a big rock in the center of the
cave starting a fire behind it", THEREFORE, any other reason must not be
true.
> I am not
>looking for
>mathematical proof. I am looking to systematically compare the data to
>competing hypotheses.
Glenn: And you do this by not even reading the articles? I would commend
you on your methodology.
AT: How does sarcasm help advance your argument? Given the information that
I have at this point, I am engaging in an exercise of logic. Again, I stress
that this is an informal forum, sort of like being in the living room of a
group of friends and having a discussion, with the understanding that what
is communicated here is not the final word, not to be widely publicized and
made official, not to be blown out of proportion. My methodology would
certainly be suspect if I had done what I did here with the intent selling
myself as an expert, claiming my opinion as professional and expert, rather
than personal, and getting my views published and widely read by others.
Just about everyone who ever posted has shared some personal opinion on
topics they were not experts in. Are they all irresponsible?
>AT: I can't help but notice an unusual level of defensiveness in your
post.
Glenn: NO, it is frustration at dealing with someone determined to doubt
everything. Of course we can do that.
AT: In what way have I shown that I am determine to doubt everything? I
simply asked if all of those examples you shared could have been evidence of
something other than religious practices. I did not doubt the accuracy of
those reports, nor did I doubt your knowledge in this area. In fact, I totk
it all at face value, and then applied my reasoning to it.
Look Glenn. This is nothing personal and I am not seeking to diminish your
credibility nor that of the scientists you quoted. I am raising an issue for
discussion, and as a result of having done so, I am chided for being
irresponsible and biased. I may have my biases, but it is NOT in this issue
of whether these are humans or not. I am looking to be educated by experts
like yourself in this area. Tell me why I am wrong, but please, do not
pretend that you understand my motivations nor judge me as a
less-than-honorable person becasue I raised a question about your
conclusion.
Sincerely,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 21 2002 - 23:02:26 EDT