Indigenous myths and archaeology

Discussions unearthing human history including cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc.

Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby CanadysPeak on July 23rd, 2012, 7:40 pm 

Lincoln wrote:. . ., but it does seem like their should be some sort of way to write a waiver that says "Genetic material contains all sorts of information. While our current question is XXX, you can expect that other questions might be asked using this material." (Suitably gussied up, of course.)



Don,

You can't get there from here. CFR 46 specifically addresses this as,

"No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence."

Just asking crosses the line and makes the consent invalid. Romney may get rid of such regulations but, for now, it's just impossible to do a blanket waiver.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 23rd, 2012, 7:55 pm 

I personally wouldn't demand FN submit to genetic studies. Absolutely not. However, once the samples are taken, that's a different story.

If the original compact didn't specify what was to be done with the samples once the original tests were complete, the scientists should be able to do whatever they want with them: burn them, preserve them, whatever.

And while the outright lying you mention here and in an earlier post so as to advance a particular position certainly does happen, neither is it particularly germaine here. I certainly don't support fudging a conclusion and would speak out against it most vocally.

That isn't what happened here and to include it is to introduce a red herring or, at the very least, a redirect of the original question. Now, if the data was fudged to generate a "mostly out of Asia" conclusion, I retract my point and condemn the practice. But I haven't seen that claim made in the context of this study. I understand this particular result to be a legitimate conclusion, supported by the data.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Forest_Dump on July 23rd, 2012, 8:06 pm 

I think weakmagneto didpost a link here to a genetic study done (and that was not the first one posted here) and I do not have much of a problem with it other than, as noted, it does need to be calibrated with the archaeological record where and if possible.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8719
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby wolfhnd on July 23rd, 2012, 11:39 pm 

Since this is something that effects you on a more personal level Forest that the rest of us I'm not sure that it's fair to nick pick but do you not think that there is a benefit to having an accurate picture of your genetic and cultural history?
wolfhnd
 


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 24th, 2012, 8:29 am 

Wolf,

Unfair question. In general, European-originated Americans care about their heritage. Most of us know "I'm 50% Irish, 10% Bulgarian, etc." This is true also of many partially African-originated Americans, although they tend to have lost the specific locations of their African origin. Many, if not most, "black Americans" have a healthy chunk of European DNA floating around in their blood. Some of them know the European origins. Asians also know from where in Asia they came.

However, it is not required that this information be valuable to a person. Even if Forest thinks it important, it is not a priori required that this is true of everyone. For most people, the only substantive benefit is to know the medical histories of parents, siblings and grand parents.

Mind you, I'm interested in the history of my family. But I also realize that this is a choice and not a particularly defensible one.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Forest_Dump on July 24th, 2012, 7:03 pm 

wolfhnd wrote:Since this is something that effects you on a more personal level Forest that the rest of us I'm not sure that it's fair to nick pick but do you not think that there is a benefit to having an accurate picture of your genetic and cultural history?


Perfectly reasonable question. Yes, I would say obviously yes I do. In fact, I have a deep interest in what we do call the culture history of the continent and the world. In fact, since when you get down to it, I am more of one of those, if you will forgive the term (couldn't think of a gender neutral alternative), "brotherhood of man" types and happen to have a deepinterest in the broad area where I live - i.e., in the deep prehistoric past. It is not my direct genetic ancestry that interests me because I am also not what you would broadly describe as an "essentialist" in that I do not think there is very much of importance that is inherited or comes down through the blood line, etc. Furthermore, although I don't strictly follow any "ism" defined in theory, I do tend to practise more "cognitive" archaeology (actually as defined by Colin Renfrew) and try to reconstruct past thought patterns. Which is not the same as individual thoughts - that tends to require crystal balls or Ouiji boards, etc. Consequently, in some ways, I feel I do understand past FN people, for example, perhaps more than many or most modern FN peoples do.

But all that said and done, the key point here is that my interests and beliefs do not entitle me to go dig up your grandfather, without your permission, to scratch some intellectual itch I might have.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8719
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby wolfhnd on July 24th, 2012, 8:30 pm 

My problem if you would call it a problem is that I don't care if you go dig up my grandfather and consider burial something of a barbaric custom. At the very least it has the potential to spread disease, unlikely but still. I prefer cremation but not sure if that isn't a waste of fossil fuels but donation of bodies etc. creeps me out, I even have trouble cleaning fish or cutting meat, but since I don't have to see it I may go the body for research route.

Totally off subject but has there ever been a case of an archaeologist contracting something from a prehistoric excavation in North America?
wolfhnd
 


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 24th, 2012, 8:41 pm 

Forest,

I know what you are saying, but you did say that nothing of importance comes down the bloodline. But we do know genetics and we do know that there are family traits that are physical (and, of course, some that are from upbringing). I'm not really arguing with you here and one can horrendously over blow the effect of heritage. But it's there for at least a couple of generations, before a trait gets diluted.

Personally, I'm strongly of the opinion that blood is everything. 'cuz, you know, if you don't have any, you're dead.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby weakmagneto on July 24th, 2012, 11:01 pm 

I have been thinking about the best way to respond to the OP so you could understand the position I have chosen to debate on this subject. I will follow this post with another explaining my doubts that science has proven 100% definitively that Native Americans did not originate in North America.

Fictional Scenario:

The UN has just announced that many of the world’s leaders, richest bankers, entrepreneurs, mining company owners, etc. have admitted they are aliens from Planet Y. They have taken UN representatives to Planet Y to validate their claims. Planet Y exists and has human populations that are similar but different from human populations on Earth. They have been on Earth since the 5th century BC and have intermingled with and lived as humans for all of that time. They have proven that they have created most of the world’s economic and political systems.

They presented the UN with some genetic studies mapping human migration from Planet Y to Earth. They state they have been doing testing on humans for centuries under the guise of alien abductions. They admit they are the owners of many of the world’s top research centres.

The genetic studies as follows:
“*Planet Y scientists have found that human populations -- from Canada to the southern tip of Africa -- arose from at least three migrations, with the majority descended entirely from a single group of First African migrants that crossed over from Mars, a planet between Planet Y and Earth more than 70,000 years BP.

By studying variations in human DNA sequences, the Planet Y science team found that while most human populations arose from the first migration, two subsequent migrations also made important genetic contributions.

For years it has been contentious whether the settlement of the Earth occurred by means of a single or multiple migrations from Planet Y," said *Professor Tom Thumb (Planet Y Genetics, Evolution and Environment), who coordinated the study. "But our research settles this debate: Humans do not stem from a single migration. Our study also begins to cast light on patterns of human dispersal throughout the Earth."

In the most comprehensive survey of genetic diversity in humans so far, the team took data from 52 countries and 17 Planet Y groups, studying more than 300,000 specific DNA sequence variations called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms to examine patterns of genetic similarities and differences between the population groups.

The second and third migrations have left an impact only in African populations that speak Khoisan and the Bantu language. However, even these populations have inherited most of their genome from the First African migration. Khoisan speakers derive more than 50% of their DNA from First Africans, and the Bantu around 90%. This reflects the fact that these two later streams of Planet Y migration mixed with the First Africans they encountered after they arrived on Earth.”


*The above fictional genetic study was adapted from “Native American Populations Descend From Three Key Migrations, Scientists Say”, published July 11, 2012 in Science Daily.

*Professor Tom Thumb is a fictional name.


The aliens state that humans did NOT originate on Earth, but are from Planet Y. They theorize that humans migrated here through a quantum wormhole from their planet to Mars. The evidence of human inhabitation was destroyed on Mars. They believe humans left Mars to inhabit Earth landing in Africa. They are not sure how that was done. All they have are theories.

They believe that humans destroyed and interbred with most of the original inhabitants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The aliens would like to declare a global government ruled by them since they control most of the world anyways. They state that humans have NO indigenous rights to lands or resources just because humans colonized this planet first.

Based on the evidence that they have provided, the aliens state that humans should give up their belief systems, including evolution, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, etc. and accept that what they believed all of this time is wrong.
User avatar
weakmagneto
Active Member
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby weakmagneto on July 24th, 2012, 11:05 pm 

Lincoln wrote: weakmagneto,

Just to clarify before I add a snort to this facet of the conversation. Are you saying that the jury is out on whether Native American's homeland is America? Or are you saying that you accept a non-American origin, but you aren't sure about the dominant Asian origin? Do you think the data supports a European origin with equal probability? Or some sort of Polynesian/Kon Tiki kind of thing?


I agree that there have been multiple migrations of people into North America. I am not disputing that.

@ Forest: For those Native Americans who believe that they evolved here, is there 100% definitive/conclusive proof that they did not (other than the theory of evolution)?

Here are some problems that I have with accepting that there is 100% proof that Native Americans did not originate here:

Genetic Research:
Most genetic studies results dealing with Native American migrations yield probabilities NOT certainties.

Genetic studies may have gaps in data (the Harvard data lacked significant U.S. and Canadian Native American DNA with only a few from Canada and two from the States, much of the DNA came from South America), biased interpretation of data, flawed methodologies, limitations in research, etc.

Archaeological Data:
A cycle that I have noticed about archaeology is that old theories have been challenged and most times are replaced by new ones. In some cases, new theories are often opposed until the old ones are proven wrong. During my lifetime, I have heard that the oldest remains found on this continent was 7,000 years old, then it went up to 10,000, now I think it is over 15,000.

New discoveries are happening all of the time. For example, coprolites (fossilized feces) were found in the Paisely Caves in Oregon just recently. They are estimated to pre-date the Clovis culture by 1,200 years. There has been a 2,500 year pre-Clovis find of tools in Texas (Debra L. Friedkin site) that challenges the long-held theory of how humans first populated the Americas.

New species are being discovered. For example, remains of the Red Deer Cave People were found in China earlier this year and they may just be a new human species. Homo floresiensis, nicknamed “The Hobbit” was a new human species discovered in 2003 in Indonesia.

Where is the archaeological evidence to support the Bering Strait theory or even ancient sites in Alaska to mark the migration of such a mass of people?

We live in a HUGE continent. In my area, it is pretty much virgin territory compared to other areas. There aren’t many academics conducting archaeological digs here or nearby. I know there have been discoveries up north of 7,000 and 5,000 year old remains.

I believe that there are still many discoveries to be come. Whether they prove or disprove some Native American beliefs, only time will tell.

What bothers me about this subject is IMO it seems ethnocentric in terms of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and this is how it is.”. What makes one culture believe that their beliefs are more important over another’s and that they should impose their beliefs on them?

In conclusion, I have chosen this position to argue with the below comments in the OP because I don’t think that science has proven without a shadow of doubt that some Native Americans did not originate in the Americas. It's like a medical doctor telling me that I have symptoms of cancer and diagnosing me based on those symptoms without verification of conclusive medical tests.

I shall await a “snort” from you, Lincoln…

Lincoln wrote: It is clear that archaeology and genetic studies prove that Native Americans didn't originate in the Americas. The predominant source is from Asia, although it appears that native populations have enough European DNA to suggest a small migration from the east.

The problem appears to be that some Native American religions insist that the tribes always lived where they do now and the archaeologists have to somehow respect this (meaning not contradict this obviously-untrue belief) out of some kind of respect.

Given that we (i.e. the dominant European culture) have a population of people who trash our own creation myths, why the kid gloves on the native myths? I mean, it's clear that they are wrong...as much as biblical literalists are wrong.

I figure Forest knows more of this on the other side of the question. I don't claim to have much expertise on this...just some ideas from reading a popularization...but do archaeologists say "Well, you can believe what you believe, but what you believe is impossible?" (Or something like that?)
User avatar
weakmagneto
Active Member
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 25th, 2012, 9:17 am 

What makes one culture believe that their beliefs are more important over another’s and that they should impose their beliefs on them?

If you had been around longer, you would know that this isn't a question of imposing a culture's beliefs on another one. I don't care one iota what someone believes, as long as they don't vote on the basis of a fairy tale. (Because then the fairy tale can impact people outside the fairy-tale-accepting culture.) While it is obvious in the context of this discussion, I could be seen as referring to your position, a much bigger influence is Israel-originated religions. So understand I'm not actually all that concerned about the NA origin beliefs, which have essentially no cultural impact in the US/Canada.

For me, the question is one of objective truth. And the objective truth is that mankind arose somewhere and spread. Maybe it arose, spread, and then has been mixing for tens of thousands of years. At this particular moment, I'm not concerned where mankind arose. If it happens that the oldest population of mankind happened to originate in Inuit territory and subsequently spread everywhere, so be it. All I personally care about is objective truth.

Now you talk about 100% and science. It is with perhaps insufficient delicacy that I say that if you insist on 100% certainty, you really don't understand how empirical knowledge works. I can't say with 100% certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I can't say with 100% certainty that all the air in the room you're sitting in won't jump to one corner, leaving you to suffocate in a vacuum. I can't say with 100% certainty that you won't quantum tunnel through your chair and smace your butt on the floor. (I picked physics examples, because it's what I do.) 100% certainty is an unreasonable standard of knowledge in the empirical realm.

This is true for absolutley anything you hold dear. The difference is science has embraced this fact and attempted to quantify our residual degree of uncertainty. This is a huge advance in the degree to which we understand our universe. The fact that most people live their lives without assigning uncertainty to their statements means we really don't know how much we should believe them. Now, we do this sort of unconsciously. We assign a low probability to what politicians say and what adolescent boys say to girls on a date when the time gets late. We assign higher probability to things that are familiar, like the sun coming up. But don't let the fact that science assigns numbers to things (and sometimes those numbers aren't 100%, while others fail to assign numbers) let you believe that these other things are more certain.

Finally, regarding the geographical origins of mankind, I am certainly not an expert. Forest can tell you much more. However, this particular topic is understood well enough that expert knowledge is not needed to work out the nuances. You said that we live on big continent. Well, Europe, Asia and Africa are also big continents. The archaeological record is thin everywhere. But there is an enormous signature of mankind living on all of the big continents more than 50,000 years ago except the Americas. That is an objective fact. There is simply no evidence for hominids in the US/Canada/etc. from that time. Nor is there any evidence for antecedent species. Nor is the mDNA of natives very diverse in comparison to other populations (with Africa being the most diverse). Nor is the cultural progression of archaeological digs inconsistent with at least one and probably two diasporas from Africa (although the uncertainty on that is higher than some). Plus there are the linguistic studies which chronicle more recent migrations and cultural diffusion.

Getting back to the lead quote, you are free to believe what you want. But your belief (or my belief, for that matter) has zero bearing on whether what you believe is true. And the data strongly supports an African-origin hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt. (Note the word "reasonable," indicating fantastic, but imperfect, knowledge. If you want 100% certainty, well there is church and sports teams affiliation for that sort of thing.)

No snort, but there are different calibers of knowledge and some knowledge has been poked at more vigorously than others. That knowledge has a greater chance of being right.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Forest_Dump on July 26th, 2012, 4:15 pm 

I suppose small things first:

wolfhnd wrote:Totally off subject but has there ever been a case of an archaeologist contracting something from a prehistoric excavation in North America?


As far as I know, no one has revived some old disease, etc., from digging up old things, not even from plague pits. But there are some ailments you can get from digging ranging from tetnus (sic?) to some rare disease I had heard of that can be contracted from excavation to gardening. And there are certainly hazards from polluted ground, particularly in urban archaeology (more than once crews have been threatened with having to dig while wearing biohazard suits but all cases I heard of ended up with the area being avoided). Perhaps more of a concern is digging in caves with bats.

weakmagneto wrote:@ Forest: For those Native Americans who believe that they evolved here, is there 100% definitive/conclusive proof that they did not (other than the theory of evolution)?


Well, speculation about the origins of the FN of North America goes back long before evolution was discovered and, as a matter of fact, back in the 17th century the first proposal was made for Asian origins. But others have certainly also suggested the people came from Atlantis or one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. And of course other ideas including special creation here.

But by the beginning of the 20th century the money was going to Asian origins. The closest relatives to modern humans native to the New World are New World monkeys but these differ from Old World monkeys, apes and humans in the structure of their noses and the number of their teeth (NW monkeys have one more premolar in each quadrant) and minor things like having a prehensile tail (only they can use their tails to grab things, etc.). So there is no evidence of any kind of direct connection with New World monkeys since they split from Old World monkeys prior to the appearance of the earliest apes and there have been no fossils of anything more advanced than NW monkeys until we get anatomically modern humans.

On the other hand, as these genome studies are now supporting, there is all kinds of evidence that FN peoples are closely related with most of the rest of the world and northeast Asia in particular. Again, that is not really new but the genome studies are just supporting what had previously been proposed from other sources like blood type distributions to the shape of the teeth and things like stone tools. Every so often, alternatives do appear (e.g., the recent revival of a direct European connection) but they never really last long.

Short answer is that there really aren't any viable alternatives unless you are going to support something entirely supernatural that left no fossil or archaeological evidence. What are the alternatives?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8719
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 26th, 2012, 4:35 pm 

I would still be extremely cautious about digging around in the above mentioned 'plague pits': There was a guy very recently in the state of Washington, who almost died from a full blown case of the "Black Death" that he received from an infected cat bite(or scratch).
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Forest_Dump on July 26th, 2012, 4:46 pm 

ronjanec wrote:I would still be extremely cautious about digging around in the above mentioned 'plague pits': There was a guy very recently in the state of Washington, who almost died from a full blown case of the "Black Death" that he received from an infected cat bite(or scratch).


Well, that is a bit different. The plague in that case did come from live fleas. Not the same as something in the ground for hundreds or thousands of years.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8719
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 26th, 2012, 4:47 pm 

I think we should all 'chip in' and buy Lincoln some new clothes that are anything other than black for his next video? Maybe BioWizard could act as his consultant on this?

If enough people are interested in this, I will give you my home address(just mark this 'the man in black fund'), and I will give Don a gift certifcate to Marshall's after covering my expenses.
Last edited by ronjanec on July 26th, 2012, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 26th, 2012, 4:54 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:
ronjanec wrote:I would still be extremely cautious about digging around in the above mentioned 'plague pits': There was a guy very recently in the state of Washington, who almost died from a full blown case of the "Black Death" that he received from an infected cat bite(or scratch).


Well, that is a bit different. The plague in that case did come from live fleas. Not the same as something in the ground for hundreds or thousands of years.


I am no biologist of course, but is it still possible that an active virus could last that long in a extreme case?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby dragslaye on July 27th, 2012, 5:54 pm 

ronjanec wrote:I think we should all 'chip in' and buy Lincoln some new clothes that are anything other than black for his next video? Maybe BioWizard could act as his consultant on this?

If enough people are interested in this, I will give you my home address(just mark this 'the man in black fund'), and I will give Don a gift certifcate to Marshall's after covering my expenses.


Lincoln is a Particle physicist not an archeologist, and about plague, there are in average about 1000 cases of plague every year in the U.S
User avatar
dragslaye
Member
 
Posts: 424
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Location: Toronto


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Whut on July 27th, 2012, 8:47 pm 

Whut wrote:I don't think this is, or ever was, primarily a matter of Truth. Over a period of time, Christianity was eventually identified by academia to pose a threat to academic power - to me this seems to be the real primary concern. Once this concern was identified, appeals to Truth were used to combat the threat posed (i.e. truth wasn't the end itself). If a belief isn't true, it doesn't seem apparent that it should matter, if that belief poses no genuine threat to one's power.


A few things to add. Genuine truth seekers have arisen, but they don't rally the initial cause they came from. Now, truth itself may have become an end for some (including me, I like to think), but, understand, there was always a lot more to it than that. If you're gonna speak from authority, do it right.

I learn a lot about LIFE from FN teachings, and they don't threaten me. The same can be said for particle physics.

Lincoln,

Why do you value truth? Simply because it's truth. . . or because it's beneficial to be right, ect.?
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 27th, 2012, 10:42 pm 

dragslaye wrote:
ronjanec wrote:I think we should all 'chip in' and buy Lincoln some new clothes that are anything other than black for his next video? Maybe BioWizard could act as his consultant on this?

If enough people are interested in this, I will give you my home address(just mark this 'the man in black fund'), and I will give Don a gift certifcate to Marshall's after covering my expenses.


Lincoln is a Particle physicist not an archeologist, and about plague, there are in average about 1000 cases of plague every year in the U.S



???
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 27th, 2012, 11:23 pm 

Whut wrote: Lincoln,

Why do you value truth? Simply because it's truth. . . or because it's beneficial to be right, ect.?

Chicks dig it and it teaches you a few parlor tricks.

I've always wanted to understand objective reality, even the objective fact that there are some realities that are subjective. It's a choice and I don't claim it is universal or the only value system one can have.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 12:38 pm 

Lincoln wrote:
Whut wrote: Lincoln,

Why do you value truth? Simply because it's truth. . . or because it's beneficial to be right, ect.?

Chicks dig it and it teaches you a few parlor tricks.

I've always wanted to understand objective reality, even the objective fact that there are some realities that are subjective. It's a choice and I don't claim it is universal or the only value system one can have.


Truth equals reality, and reality is everything.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 28th, 2012, 1:09 pm 

ronjanec,

This is also a bit off topic (although not as much as the last deviation), but truth is far trickier than that for a lot of people. Within the context of the thread, perhaps "truth" to the natives means the tribe always lived where they do now. It may not be objectively true, but it is held as an inarguable fact. Your own irrational invocation of an invisible sky spirit is something you no doubt hold as factually correct. Putting aside the question of whether it is factually correct or not, it is a belief you hold to be true. I personally hold that a deep understanding of objective reality is intrinsically interesting, although I do not claim that this is anything other than opinion. But, using the word in a commonly-sloppy way, one could say that it is true for me.

I keep separate objective truths and subjective ones. But this isn't always done. Scientists may have an edge on this one, as they are still human, but their training pushes them to remove the subjective.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 1:47 pm 

Lincoln wrote:ronjanec,

This is also a bit off topic (although not as much as the last deviation), but truth is far trickier than that for a lot of people. Within the context of the thread, perhaps "truth" to the natives means the tribe always lived where they do now. It may not be objectively true, but it is held as an inarguable fact. Your own irrational invocation of an invisible sky spirit is something you no doubt hold as factually correct. Putting aside the question of whether it is factually correct or not, it is a belief you hold to be true. I personally hold that a deep understanding of objective reality is intrinsically interesting, although I do not claim that this is anything other than opinion. But, using the word in a commonly-sloppy way, one could say that it is true for me.

I keep separate objective truths and subjective ones. But this isn't always done. Scientists may have an edge on this one, as they are still human, but their training pushes them to remove the subjective.


The philosopher in me just had to comment on this while I was doing the laundry(and my own threads are kind of 'dead in the water' at the present time), but I will not expound on this any further, because it is of course "off topic" like you just mentioned Mr. Vadar.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 28th, 2012, 2:10 pm 

It's not entirely off topic, as the question of the creation myths as a "truth" or the "truth" (i.e. really a value) that believing in the "right" (i.e. accepted) thing can trump objective reality for some societies. It might actually be of relevance here.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 2:26 pm 

Lincoln wrote:It's not entirely off topic, as the question of the creation myths as a "truth" or the "truth" (i.e. really a value) that believing in the "right" (i.e. accepted) thing can trump objective reality for some societies. It might actually be of relevance here.


There is your opinion, my opinion, their opinion, but there is only one truth(reality) about everything, which would of course include science, religion, and Native American beliefs.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 28th, 2012, 2:31 pm 

There is only one objective truth. But we do use the word "truth" to describe subjective choices. "It is bad to kill other humans" is an example of a subjectively-true statement. The statement is objectively indefensible.

There is very little in the social arena that rises to the level of an objective truth. The morality question above is a prime example.

And this thread clearly related to this distinction.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 2:41 pm 

Lincoln wrote:There is only one objective truth. But we do use the word "truth" to describe subjective choices. "It is bad to kill other humans" is an example of a subjectively-true statement. The statement is objectively indefensible.

There is very little in the social arena that rises to the level of an objective truth. The morality question above is a prime example.

And this thread clearly related to this distinction.


Thanks Lincoln. I will have to use the word objective truth next time.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 3:26 pm 

Lincoln,

So your personal athiestic beliefs are subjective "truth", and my personal religious beliefs are objective truth right?(I crack myself up!)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby Lincoln on July 28th, 2012, 5:41 pm 

Don't project your cartoon vision of atheism on me. I am a scientist and empiricist. Many religious models have been falsified beyond reasonable doubt. Some have not. All conclusions are subject to revision as additional data makes it necessary to rethink the situation. I also am at least willing to consider the possibility that the Sun won't come up tomorrow, although this seems highly improbable.

However, that said, it's very, very sad to see people retain allegiance to falsified views. Plus Bears training camp is starting. During the Fall, there are better things to do with hours on Sunday than how you spend them.
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10729
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...


Re: Indigenous myths and archaeology

Postby ronjanec on July 28th, 2012, 10:49 pm 

Lincoln wrote:Don't project your cartoon vision of atheism on me. I am a scientist and empiricist. Many religious models have been falsified beyond reasonable doubt. Some have not. All conclusions are subject to revision as additional data makes it necessary to rethink the situation. I also am at least willing to consider the possibility that the Sun won't come up tomorrow, although this seems highly improbable.

However, that said, it's very, very sad to see people retain allegiance to falsified views. Plus Bears training camp is starting. During the Fall, there are better things to do with hours on Sunday than how you spend them.


And I thought that you would be really proud of me for using something that you just taught me in a sentence! My, some people are really hard to please Lincoln.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


PreviousNext

Return to Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests