Re: maize in Europe and India: a twisted tale

Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org)
29 Dec 1996 07:03:42 GMT

Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article <5a457u$4rp@news1.io.org> yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:

: For sure Yuri. And to cover up their tracks the sneaky Eurocentrics
: gathered up every corn cob which ever existed in the Old World and
: sent them on a boat back to the New World so that future archaeologists
: would never be able to uncover their incredible deceit. But they
: didn't count on the pluckiness of a single adventurer who would hail
: from the far away (in both time and space) land of Toronto.

Well, since Peter never tires of repeating his one big trump card: the
argumentum ex silentio, a common logical fallacy, obviously he hasn't yet
read the file that is available on the Internet, and that I posted
especially for him a while back. Here you go again, Peter. It's never too
late to learn new things...

BTW, and who is making these cross-posts now? I have reduced the
follow-ups on my original post specifically because some people
(including you!) complained about cross-posting. Perhaps it is your lack
of familiarity with elementary logic that makes you constantly contradict
yourself? Well, the cure is on its way -- just read the following this
time.

[begin quote]

________________________________________________________________

Interpretation of Evidence
________________________________________________________________

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOF


What is the nature of archaeological evidence and what can we expect to
learn from it? We will discuss briefly some cautions about the
interpretation of archaeological evidence.

We cannot expect too much from archaeology. While at times
concrete, definitive proof that needs no interpretation is
discovered, more often that is not the case. Archaeological evidence
is often not absolute, but relative. There are a number of reasons
for this, the most important, however, is that we frequently do not
have all of the evidence. Do you know how many sites are
unexcavated? And even at a given site, who would dare to make bold
claims until further research was done? The best that can be done is
to reconstruct probable interpretations. These need to be carefully
checked with all of the available written evidence while further
field work is done.

The interpreter must use strict rules of logic while dealing
with evidence. For instance an important principle to remember is
that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just
because something has not been found, that is not to say that it
will not be found. The absence of evidence is obviously a problem,
particularly in archaeology. But it is only crucial when it can be
proven that one has no hope of ever finding what one is lacking. On
the other hand, beware of arguments that are intentionally based on a
lack of evidence. That is, some people claim that the fact that there
is no evidence proves something. This is called an argument from
silence. It must be rejected for lack of evidence. There are a number
of rules of logic that apply in a simple way to the interpretation of
data.

Always think clearly and use careful rules of logic.

--

            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=

  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---

 

We should always be disposed to believe that that which 

appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 

Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola