Minimalist wrote:
In Chapter XI of Origin of Species he talks about "Centres of Creation"
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi ... er-11.html
This view of the relation of species in one region to those in another, does not differ much (by substituting the word variety for species) from that lately advanced in an ingenious paper by Mr Wallace, in which he concludes, that `every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.' And I now know from correspondence, that this coincidence he attributes to generation with modification.
In fact, he seems far more concerned with the mechanism of dispersal than the mechanism of "creation."
Strange that it is not Wallace's "Theory of Evolution". And we use "species" instead of "varieties". But then Wallace wrote a paper, while Darwin wrote a book. They had different factors driving them, and different opportunities open to them.
I went back through this thread, trying to see why Calico set off this discussion on the evolution of science, the resistance to advances, and the responses to the "fringes" of it.
Just to clear this up for your all, science is a religion, with certain BELIEFS
1) Existence is structured in such a way that it can be labeled,
2) and those labels can be used to manipulate it for man's benefit.
Furthermore:
3) those labels are always extensible, and
3) extending those labels will be for man's benefit.
These are all BELIEFS held for no other reason than that they have worked: it's simply that the application of them has benefited mankind.
Thus these are all BELIEFS demonstrated only by induction. When one considers how close we came to annihilating ourselves with nuclear weapons, one must give each of them close consideration.
As new data (facts of existence) are discovered, they have normally in the past forced a revision of the labeling system. Data is observed which the labeling system does not account for, and the labelling system is changed. This extends to the data of dynamic processes as well as to static data.
An instance of this is currently seen in human taxonomy, where new finds are being made which can not be adequately described using existing taxonomy. (Which is why the possible finds at Calico set off this discussion, but it could have been the new hard finds from Georgia or Asia instead.) And this in turn will change how we understand the dynamic process of human evolution.
Another good example of this dynamic process in science itself is seen in our understanding of the KT impacts. Originally it was thought by most impact experts that the Chicxulub impact was sufficient in and of itself to have caused the dinosaurs' extinction. Attempts were made to explain the impact debris distribution, and were widely accepted, but ultimately it turned out that they were not correct.
And then by a combination of chances one researcher, who was Indian by descent and fluent with Indian geological data, and had the need to do so, identified the Shiva Crater.
Now let us consider some questions. Could someone else have done it? Would someone else have done it? If so, when?
The progress of science depends on many factors.
The progress of science depends on money: science is carried out by people. And the way that money is distributed largely contributes to the advancement of science in certain directions. Generally it is the case that science with the highest likelyhood of payback to a society is funded: thus in an age of nuclear weapons, nuclear research gets funded. And while we have the capability for self destruction, you know how society values archaeological research, which provides data fundamnental to understanding human behavior, particularly that of groups.
Also, science funding is usually controlled by those who have obtained mastery of the existing paradigm. So if there are no pre-Clovis sites, why then no one has money to look for any, and there are none. In impact research funding has been controlled by those having mastery of the asteroid impact, which has led to a certain bias against comet impact, and resulting lack of funding for research into cometary impacts.
The progress of science also depends on other social factors. For example, the labeling set of relativity could not progress in Nazi Germany. Given that Nazi Germany was based on an occult belief system, that belief system did not survive either. We in the US and Europe generally live in societies with Judao-Christian belief system, which promotes a Pythagorean/Platonic world view. There is no place in this world view for impact events, which are mathematically chaotic, though coherent.
The progress of science depends upon the existing data base. While many of you here will have trouble accepting this, the establishment of the paleo-point database has led to a substantial restructuring of the understanding by many scientists of Clovis. In impact research, US historical memory extends but a mere 400 years, while elsewhere it extends far further; my book was an attempt to extend our memory; in the process, it took my own.
The progress of science can depend on communication. Darwin received Wallace's paper: there was a reliable printing and postal system. In the case of impact research, we had and have the internet, which allowed for rapid development. But Dr. Peiser's decision to move his focus in the Cambridge Conference over to scepticism of global warming shut down a vital channel of communication among impact researchers, thus impeding the advancement of this field recently.
The progress of science can depend on the survival of knowledge, or the suppression of it.
Where would science be if many libraries had not been burned? That is one reason why the retrieval of documents from Herculaneum, the sands of Egypt, and the soils of mesopotamia are so important, as is our ability to read Mayan hieroglyphic writing. That is why the retrieval of writings is one of the key goals of archaeology. They contain concentrated data that otherwise would only be recoverable by many excavations.
The progress of science can depend upon the forces of nature. They had optics and water systems on Thera, and a wide spread trading network to share any technology or idea developed within it. Then the volcano erupted. There were other peoples who were either blown off or washed off the face of the Earth by impacts, and their knowledge was lost.
The progress of science depends on individuals, and is chaotic itself to some degree as are most people's lives. My own stroke greatly slowed impact studies down. But others will pick them up. "Man and Impact in the Ancient Near East" will be written by someone else, someday, somewhere. If they don't do it willingly, the data will force them to it.
Now for what we may loosely call the "fringes". Besides the continuance of labeling systems which did not work, and the tying of these to the religions in which they evolved, there are also new labeling systems proposed which are simply not valid. These labeling systems themselves can result in perceptual problems. (In some areas of research, such as studies of UFO and psychic phenomenon, its not a quesion of repeatability, but rather of perception, and sorting any "hard" data from that simply "perceived".)
Whether Calico is "real" data or "perceived" data is an open question. Right now the impact community is having a real fit trying to sort out and nail down impact markers. Lackng the central clearing house we once had, this process is proceeding in "scientific" fights, instead of proceeding by scientific discussion.
Lastly, science is an activity carried out by people, and people are quite complex social animals, driven by their own personal needs, restraints, and limits. Real archaeologists are people themselve, who have real human needs, concerns, and limits.
One final point: for most humans, problem solving by itself is pleasurable. Witness activities such as crosswords, card games, role playing games, etc. When a problem is solved, the human brain releases endorphins, which is percieved as pleasurable. So all in all, this is why we get terms such as "das club" used here and other celebrations when news comes in of possible data which is percieved by someone as comfirming their hypothesis. Their solution to the puzzle works. One real question is why any one person finds their particular puzzle so fascinating.
In my opinion, this pleasure given by solving puzzles is also why we have little arguments going on, instead of little discussions.
That's science as a process in the real world, at least as I have experienced it.
As always, I have been wrong before, and I retain the right to be wrong both now and in the future. If I have left anything out, feel free to mention it.
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas
(thought to be a great book by some;
thought by others to be a load of nonsense mythical rubbish)
