Yes: we've seen this in geology with plate tectonics.
Now we see this in anthropology with coastal dispersal.

Most paleo-anthropologists are still afro- & anthropocentrially biased:
-- Homo didn't come from Africa, but from S-Asia,
-- apiths are no human ancestors, but were fossil Gorilla or Pan.

-bipedal (today hylobatids & humans) were all Hominoidea,
-australopiths were fossil relatives of Gorilla & Pan, not of us,
-Africa = rain-forest + savanna, but Out of Africa is nonsense,
-we were no BP runners, but BP waders-climbers in swamp forests,
-etc.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes: we've seen this in geology with plate tectonics.
> Now we see this in anthropology with coastal dispersal.

Paleo anthropology is not a science. It literally violates scientific
principles and practices.

Sample/Selection/Preservation bias.

And, oh, with a strong element of circular reasoning...

"I decided that human evolution all took place in Africa. So I will
go there, search only the easiest, most accessible areas with the
highest likelihood of preservation and then concoct some
narrative where it all leads me to exactly where I began from."

It's not science.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712626036266926080/jj-foleys

Op zaterdag 25 maart 2023 om 05:56:17 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > Yes: we've seen this in geology with plate tectonics.
> > Now we see this in anthropology with coastal dispersal.

> Paleo anthropology is not a science. It literally violates scientific
> principles and practices.
> Sample/Selection/Preservation bias.
> And, oh, with a strong element of circular reasoning...
> "I decided that human evolution all took place in Africa. So I will
> go there, search only the easiest, most accessible areas with the
> highest likelihood of preservation and then concoct some
> narrative where it all leads me to exactly where I began from."
> It's not science.

It is science, of course, e.g. the excavations, descriptions, datings etc.,
but the afrocentric & anthropocentric interpretations are incredibly prejudiced.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is science, of course, e.g. the excavations, descriptions, datings etc.,
> but the afrocentric & anthropocentric interpretations are incredibly prejudiced.

The excavations are sample/data collecting. If THAT isn't done right, if THAT
does not conform to stringent scientific practices then it is not science. And
it is not science.

Think of it like taking a poll. Anyone can ask people questions, children can do
it, but it takes knowledge/training to be able to garner a representative
sampling.

Our problem here is that they begin with a conclusion -- "Africa is the cradle of
humankind" -- and then search there, in the most likely places for things to
get preserved, and interpret everything within the context of their conclusion.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/712789255901069312

Op zondag 26 maart 2023 om 01:04:11 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> > It is science, of course, e.g. the excavations, descriptions, datings etc.,
> > but the afrocentric & anthropocentric interpretations are incredibly prejudiced.

> The excavations are sample/data collecting. If THAT isn't done right, if THAT
> does not conform to stringent scientific practices then it is not science. And
> it is not science.
> Think of it like taking a poll. Anyone can ask people questions, children can do
> it, but it takes knowledge/training to be able to garner a representative
> sampling.
> Our problem here is that they begin with a conclusion -- "Africa is the cradle of
> humankind" -- and then search there, in the most likely places for things to
> get preserved, and interpret everything within the context of their conclusion.

Yes, of course.
Our problem: they're too stupid?prejudiced don't see how wrong they are.