No such thing as discovery?

Vittorio Emanuele · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
Your post is titled "No such thing as discovery?"

Perhaps you should change it to "The Importance of the Scientific Method."

History speaks for itself. The record is what it is.

Ok, how does this defend you from the accusation of being a pseudo scientist. Being a good historian (and I'm not saying that you are) does not make you a scientist. Therefore even if your historical methods and knowledge were flawless you would not in actuality be a scientist. You have claimed to base your arguments on physics and other scientists, and then defend your credibility as a scientist by providing historical evidence (which I personally believe to be completely inaccurate and/or taken out of context) for your arguments.

Do you see the problem?

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Calling me a pseudoscientist does not make historical evidence magically disappear.

If you think that history is pseudoscience you should be able to use logic and scientific citations to show what is wrong with what I have said, not resort to childish name calling.

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Your post is titled "No such thing as discovery?"

Wrong. That is the name of the thread. As I outlined in the OP (This means original post), we should start that with an look at the development of writing. Why did I do this? This is a well documented discovery.

Perhaps you should change it to "The Importance of the Scientific Method."

Just to inform you. A post is different than a thread.

History speaks for itself. The record is what it is.

Agreed. However, not everything that is writen down is true, which I'm sure you would agree with.

You think everything was discovered yesterday so to speak. I have shown that it wasn't.

No I don't. I just think everything was discovered at a certain point in time.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
I just think everything was discovered at a single point in time.

What single point in time did writing magically evolve for no reason?

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Can you tell me why you think these people were illiterate?

I didn't see any people in your picture. Can you be more specific? Which people are you speaking of?

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
What single point in time did writing magically evolve for no reason?

I never said writing magically evolved for no reason. It was developed for a reason. In addition, there it is probable that independant discovery occured.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
I didn't see any people in your picture. Can you be more specific? Which people are you speaking of?

See my post on Nabta Playa which you are deliberately ignoring.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
I never said writing magically evolved for no reason.

What single point in time did writing first appear?

It was developed for a reason.

What reason?

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

What single point in time?

If we are speaking about writing, then there were definately independant discoveries. Based on what we know, cuneiform is the oldest known written language.

What reason?

Record keeping, which became especially important with the development of currency. Making written laws to apply to citizens of the city. Then with the development of organized religion.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
Can you tell me why you think these people were illiterate?

"... people living over seven thousand years ago may have possessed technical knowledge in astronomy and physics more advanced than our current understanding of the same subjects." -- Robert M. Schoch, geologist, 2002

"Even cursory initial consideration of the locations of the six Orion stars in question (Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka, Betelguese, Bellatrix, and Meissa) suggests that the megaliths probably represented them." -- Thomas G. Brophy, archaeoastronomer, 2002...

So, that's advanced science?

Advanced science is Calculus, Fourier transforms, Riemman Geometry. Ancient people didn't know how to calculate the orbit of a comet or anything like that. They just observed and predicted the periodic movements.
Even the simpler tribal people watched the stars, and made monolyths. They followed the stars year after year to the point they could predict the movements.

This is not rocket science but just patience.

With respect to writing, it depends on which do you define as writing! All tribal people had marks and signs. Look for example to these marks that are used by the Australian aborigines to transmit messages.

Are they writing? Not necesarily. They are symbols, of course. Natives could have some -let's say- ten conventional sticks to transmit ten standard messages. That system works, and it doesn't need writing.

So, yes, most people was analphabet in ancient times. Even in the higher cultures only the elite was literate and most people couldn't read and write. Public schools are a contemporary invention.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
If we are speaking about writing, then there were definately independant discoveries.

This contradicts your earlier statement, these are your words, "I just think everything was discovered at a single point in time."

Based on what we know, cuneiform is the oldest known written language.

We don't know anything. When did it first appear?

Record keeping, which became especially important with the development of currency.

Interesting pseudoscientific hypothesis that defies all logic. Writing existed before currency.

Making written laws to apply to citizens of the city.

Writing existed before laws.

Then with the development of organized religion.

I'm pretty sure prehistoric man wrote about other things besides religion.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
This contradicts your earlier statement, these are your words, "I just think everything was discovered at a single point in time."

We don't know anything. When did it first appear?

Interesting pseudoscientic hypothesis that defies all logic. Writing existed before currency.

LOL we taught him a new word.

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Wobomagonda said:
LOL we taught him a new word.

Teaching is always a good thing.

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

This contradicts your earlier statement, these are your words, "I just think everything was discovered at a single point in time."

I can understand your confusion, seeing as you are contextually challenged. Independant discoveries still happened (on an individual basis) at a certain point in time. They are not mutually exclusive statements, contrary to your belief.

We don't know anything. When did it first appear?

I wrote it in the OP. But since you forget, evidence points to the 34th century BCE.

Interesting pseudoscientific hypothesis that defies all logic. Writing existed before currency.

How does it defy logic?

I'm pretty sure prehistoric man wrote about other things besides religion.

Cite one example of written language that existed in the era that is called prehistory.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
Cite one example of written language that existed in the era that is called prehistory.

Vinca from 6000 B.C ...

Here is a clay amulet with writing from 4500 B.C. ...

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
Vinca from 6000 B.C...

However, language has a precise definition.

The Vinča symbols, or signs, also known as the Vinča alphabet, Vinča-Turdaş script, or Old European script, are a set of symbols found on prehistoric artifacts from southeastern Europe. A few scholars believe they constitute a writing system of the Vinča culture, which inhabited the region around 6000-4000 BC. Most, however, doubt that the markings represent writing at all, citing the brevity of the purported inscriptions and the dearth of repeated symbols in the purported script; it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3400 BC is the earliest form of writing. It is more likely that the symbols formed a kind of "proto-writing"; that is, that they conveyed a message but did not encode language.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
However, language has a precise definition.

I thought you meant writing.

I stand corrected. Language is millions of years old.

Even Neanderthals could communicate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language

the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community

Rasta · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
I thought you meant writing.

I stand corrected. Language is millions of years old.

Even Neanderthals' could communicate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language

I specifically said written language.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Agonaces said:
Vinca from 6000 B.C ...

Here is a clay amulet with writing from 4500 B.C. ...

Writing? Really? Those are symbols for sure, but writing is more complex that just symbols. Every human group have developed symbols. Even these are symbols. Not writing.

I bet you don't even have idea what the term "writing" means.

merged · Nov 20, 2009

Rasta said:
I specifically said written language.

Ok well Vinca was a written language.

Search

Search

No such thing as discovery?

Vittorio Emanuele

merged

Rasta

merged

Rasta

Rasta

merged

merged

Rasta

merged

merged

merged

Rasta

Rasta

merged

Rasta

merged

Rasta

merged

merged

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions