New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology (page 10)

EdenOne

If it's a well-established fact (a 'scientific fact') that we have 23 chromossomes, wouldn't it also be true that we have 22 chromossomes?

For example, I can have an orange in my hand and ask: What is true about this fruit?

If I'd say: "It's spheric", it would be considered an observable fact, therefore, truth.

If I'd say: "Its colour is orange", it would be considered an observable fact, therefore, truth.

If I'd say: "It's heavy", we might start to have different opinions. How much weight constitutes the quality of being "heavy"? What is a fact, therefore, truth, about it? The measurable fact is that this orange is 0,2 Kg. Some will interpret this fact as "heavy" and others will interpret it as "not heavy".

If I'd say: "It's sweet", then we start getting into really controversial territory. Sure, we can measure the quantity of sugar in it, the degree of acidity, etc etc. those are all measurable facts, but each person's palate and experience will be different. For some, it will be "sweet", for others it will be "acidic", etc etc.

So, at what point an observable fact generally accepted as "truth" may become subject to different, even opposing interpretations?

Eden

cofty

Original topic anybody?

EdenOne

Original topic anybody?

Oh, yeah....THAT

Eden

braincleaned

adamah, You say, "Unfortunately, what we say often reveals who we are, and our level of education."

This is true — however it also reveals our level of intelligence, which has little to do with education.
I have debated for decades, and I can easily point out those who have the education but not the logic.

So although education is essential to feed our intelligence, it does not guarantee practical thinking.
Some of us are avid readers, and dig deep — conscious of our natural biases, and fighting them.
I change my opinions on better information, and I'm always open to further change if needed.

To look down on someone with less education, or who expresses themselves with simpler words (even bad grammar) and overlook the message, is proof of extreme stupidity!

Lately, I've had a long debate with a Muslim with really bad broken english. It was work to decode what he had to say. It sounded childish, but his arguements were amazing in depth. We ended up agreeing to disagree — but I have learned a lot from him. So it really grinds on my patience when I read the arrogance of those who were lucky enough to get higher education as if that was any guarantee of better understanding.

Intellegence is to express thoughts logically and clearly, seeking to be understood rather than to impress.

braincleaned

Haha... yes. The original topic... guilty of regressing!

EdenOne

My orange example above ties with the OP in this:

Apparently, the recent finding of a very complete skull of a Homo Erectus in Georgia, with other 4 presumably contemporary skulls suggests that there was a considerable variety within the species, raising the possibility that other "homo" that were previously considered different species (homo habilis comes to mind) may in fact be simple variations within the same species.

So what, I ask?

The observable facts (the several skulls in various locations across the globe) are still subject to various interpretations, just as the "heavy/not heavy" or "sweet/acidic" qualities of the orange are interpretations of hard data. All of them may well be considered "truth". Perhaps the 'truth' (in scientific terms, that is) is a combination of several interpretations or different interpretations of the very same facts may be simultaneously true.

Eden

braincleaned

This article gives a simple rundown of the discovery of skull #5 in Dmanisi:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2465171/Does-skull-rewrite-history-mankind-1-8-million-year-old-remains-suggest-human-ancestors-belonged-SAME-species-just-looked-different.html

A quick look at the events are in the orance box "THE STORY OF SKULL 5."

Of course, yes — time will tell if the first impressions are correct.

cofty

Thanks braincleaned. An excellent article in the Daily Mail. Never thought I would say that :)

bohm

I will just take the oppertunity to link to Science where this is published, especially the introductory "popular" article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/current

The articles in the newspapers I have read are a journalists impression of what happends in those articles sans the more interesting figues.

Also keep an eye out for the next editions of Science and Nature where there will certainly be follow-up discussion from the community; this is often even more educating as it put it in a wider context by researchers who are perhaps less biased.

If anyone wish a copy and cannot access Science they can PM me their email and I my cat can provide one.

As a side note, why the f#ck does every other thread about science need to be derailed by this perspectivism/relativism/navelgazism trolling.

New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

Share this