Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:The most glaring fallacy between studying modern primitives and ancient ones is that we simply cannot study modern primitives without changing them. Just the knowledge of our existence introduces a variable that the ancients did not endure.

It's the old, "the solution to a problem changes the problem" axiom.

Yep - the uncertainty principle. Until we get a personal cloaking device from the Klingons or Romulans there's not much you can do about it. But taken as part of the package, I still think we learn a lot by this kind of observation.

It's better than nothing, I suppose.

Better than nothing...LOL..Bob, from you, that's a ringing endorsement!

The most glaring fallacy between studying modern primitives and ancient ones is that we simply cannot study modern primitives without changing them. Just the knowledge of our existence introduces a variable that the ancients did not endure.
It's the old, "the solution to a problem changes the problem" axiom.

But I think you exaggerate the possible danger. By the logical extension of the Heisenberg principle, we can't know anything perfectly, so we might as well give up trying to study anything. Maybe the systems are more robust than you give them credit for... some people are still doing
the skull decorating thing...thousands of years later.

we can't know anything perfectly, so we might as well give up trying to study anything.

That's a non sequitur. All of science is about imperfect knowledge striving to learn more. Still. One can indulge in a little lamentation about the lack of perfect knowledge.

Quote:
we can't know anything perfectly, so we might as well give up trying to study anything.


That's a non sequitur. All of science is about imperfect knowledge striving to learn more. Still. One can indulge in a little lamentation about the lack of perfect knowledge.

Basically we agree.
I don't think it's a non sequitur, though. Some fatalists or cynics may logically subscribe to it.

But ya gotta keep on truckin'!