aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes U.S.A. or CHINA Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "U.S.A. or CHINA" Watch "U.S.A. or CHINA" New topic
Author

U.S.A. or CHINA

frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:

But aren't the Europeans just Africans who walked a bit north?


Yes, Africans can also claim to be indigenous to North America with as much legitamcy as present day tribes.
Sri Anand
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 392
All Human beings including animals have been decoded to single GENE
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
All Human beings including animals have been decoded to single GENE


Or to simply protons, neutrons, electrons, and empty space (hot air).
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by herb slocomb:



Maybe you're suggesting that all the sciences dealing with past aren't based on science at all?


Absolutely not. Not even close. I am however commiserating with the fact that the powerful can employ many tools in their quest to regulate public belief and science is just one such tool.


I want to be like marc
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:


Absolutely not. Not even close. I am however commiserating with the fact that the powerful can employ many tools in their quest to regulate public belief and science is just one such tool.


I'm a commiserater too. I also highly respect people who are brave enough to stand up to the status quo or establisment wisdom and present well thought out opinions backed by solid scientific evidence. It takes a lot more bravery and originality of thought to present a new understanding of the past rather than just repeat what has been said before. All progress depends on those type of people.
Sri Anand
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 392
Or to simply protons, neutrons, electrons, and empty space (hot air).


Same Genetic code, this is true
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


I'm a commiserater too. I also highly respect people who are brave enough to stand up to the status quo or establisment wisdom and present well thought out opinions backed by solid scientific evidence. It takes a lot more bravery and originality of thought to present a new understanding of the past rather than just repeat what has been said before. All progress depends on those type of people.


Though its still up in the air with whom this commiseration lies. words of respect like "bravery" and "originality" only make sense when a scientist with credentials decides to work on something independently on his own dime with a single overriding objective to find the truth regardless of consequence based on solid science and does not care what established wisdom says. These kinds of people do exist and a testament of their resaerch is that it usually angers a whole lot more people than it pleases(Although the separation of church and state happened a long time ago, such people can rest easy they wont be dealt with heavy handedness).But courageous this is not!
And I think we've missed the point, this debate is not so much about Science and presenting a new understanding but agreeing first as to who stands to gain the most from such science. The intent and purpose of Science is to help remove the veil of ignorance and enlighten us towards a better understanding of the truth. It is a potent tool and has helped humanity progress no question, but why do you assume it cannot be misused by the powerful? You have not even presented a list of the sponsors of these studies, it would be nice to get a sense of who the scientific community involved in this area works for here. one of the reasons you could still find just as many arguments against global warming as those saying its a reality.
When dealing with the question of native American any argument falls short when invoking sentiments like 'bravery' and 'courage' and railing against establishment because at this point the people who stand to gain the most by these studies are not the natives nor is it somehow politically popular to maintain the natives were here first(how much of a vote bank are they anyway?) In fact if I were a real estate developer in some of the states where natives have reservations like say Arizona or las Vegas, it seems that studies like do a great deal more good for me. In this case this debate is even more pointless because forget about challenging status quo as you put it there isn't even consensus here with the community about whether these studies were done in clean and ethical way. To quote from the first website you provided:

"The Clovis consensus had too many reputations behind it to evaporate easily. Some archaeologists who backed Adavasio's conclusions with other similar data were accused of making radiocarbon dating errors or even of planting finds".


So heres what needs to be done before this argument can move forward
1. Find out who the sponsors are for this study
2. agree on who has more to gain from such studies
3. get the scientific community to agree that basic rules of arranging a scientific hypothesis have been followed. They don't have to agree on the results but the set rules and procedures must not come into question.
maybe then can we even begin to evaluate studies in favor and against this new idea and actually start a debate and quit groping in the dark.
[ August 26, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:


...Words of respect like "bravery" and "originality" only make sense when a scientist with credentials decides to work on something independently on his own dime with a single overriding objective to find the truth regardless of consequence based on solid science and does not care what established wisdom says.


"on his own dime" ???
You can't be "original" unless you fund your own research?
You can't be brave taking on the establishment risking your professional reputation and future career prospects?
Do you know how limited the employment prospects are for historical anthropologists in general and especially for those who not respected by the establisment?



And I think we've missed the point, this debate is not so much about Science and presenting a new understanding but agreeing first as to who stands to gain the most from such science.


No, actually my point has the ultimate aim of being about science, facts, and new understanding. Only as a side benefit do I enjoy poking my finger in the eye of inconvenient establisment "truths". But the avoidance of any discussion of any of the scientific merits of the points in any way is very telling in its own way about the political context of the issue. Trying to re-frame the issue in a way that casts doubts on the motives of any scientifc research that threatens the orthodoxy is a negative bias that simply distracts from discussing the actual facts.




The intent and purpose of Science is to help remove the veil of ignorance and enlighten us towards a better understanding of the truth. It is a potent tool and has helped humanity progress no question, but why do you assume it cannot be misused by the powerful?


No, I simply don't start with a firmly held opposite assumption that all science is motivated by a power struggle to oppress others. I never stated that science could not be corrupted, but I think its silly to attack every scientific fact on the basis that theories one finds unpleasant are incorrect because humans are corruptable beings.


You have not even presented a list of the sponsors of these studies...


I see; published studies and reputable web sites are not enough; there is still some type of presumption/assumption of "fishiness" if a theory attacks the status quo. But still, wouldn't it be better to attack facts with facts instead of vague insinuations that could possible amount to attacks on the characters of the scientists involved?



...the people who stand to gain the most by these studies are not the natives nor is it somehow politically popular to maintain the natives were here first(how much of a vote bank are they anyway?) In fact if I were a real estate developer in some of the states where natives have reservations like say Arizona or las Vegas, it seems that studies like do a great deal more good for me.


In reality, real estate developers always fall on their knees in anguish and tear out their hair if there is any hint that the site they are planning to develop contains any hint of any evidence of any sort of ancient tribes. That brings into play all types of laws that can cost them millions in delays.

Also, in reality, the ones that want to prevent the advancement of science have a strong motivation to protect the establishment view by preventing the discussion of new evidence that could call into question their special status and benefits under existing federal laws.

Instead of hypotheticals, there are actually real cases where science has been stopped dead in its tracks recently on this issue. Only, its not done by the ones you assume:
www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Contents/Contents-2001-3/PLS2001-3-013.pdf
The quote that stuck with me from that article "science is no longer free in the realm of human pre-history" because scientists are being prevented from studying evidence that will upset the establishment applecart. The expose by 60 minutes on Kennewick Man years ago really opened my eyes on this. They revealed that the whole archaelogical site was relatively quickly bulldozed down and any further search for scientific evidence was prevented by the stablishment.

And it actually has been proven that the status quo theories are quite popular with everyone.


In this case this debate is even more pointless because forget about challenging status quo as you put it there isn't even consensus here with the community about whether these studies were done in clean and ethical way.


Well, if there was a consensus about facts that completly repudiate the establishment view, then the establishment view would not be the establishment view for long. My point in saying that is to make clear that a consensus develops over time and that there is a consensus developing now, and its picked up its pace in the 10 years with DNA evidence.




[ August 26, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ][/QB]

[ August 27, 2008: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ August 27, 2008: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Several decades ago a theory was proposed and accepted that cannabalism as a general food source had never really existed -- that all the rumors about cannabalistic tribes were cases either of people demonizing their enemies, or people exaggerating the savagery of their own ancestors (as if to boast about how fearsome they are -- "Yeah, we're _bad_!").

The anthropologists claimed that cannabalism, to the extent it existed, was always either strictly cultic (eating a few choice bits of loved ones or vanquished foes for magical or religious effects) or atypical responses to massive famine.

Then, for a number of years, archaeologists kept finding human bones that looked as though they'd been boiled in a soup pot. Defenders of the above theory claimed that this must have been a funeral rite, and of course the bodies weren't _eaten_. One dissenter complained that the only way people would admit that cannibal cults ever existed would be to find human excrement that contained the remains of disgested human flesh.

Then, a few years ago, a large number of such human feces were found randomly scattered at a site where also found were human bones from dozens of humans all showing signs of butchering and cooking. The new theory is that these were the remains of peaceful Native American communities in the American Southwest, who had been exterminated and eaten by cannabalistic tribes from further south. There had been Indian legends consistent with this view, by the way.

The proof was _reluctantly_ accepted, although some anthropologists held out saying, "It looks like cannabalism, but maybe there's some other explanation." When asked why he was so reluctant to accept the possibility of cannabalism, he explained that "Europeans long believed themselves superior to 3rd Worlders whom they considered to be savages. Since the 1960s we've been trying to get away from that view."

In other words, most social scientists try to interpret their findings in a way that is consistent with their socio-political objectives (e.g. raising the social status of 3rd World cultures).

In pointing this out, I am in no way trying to belittle 3rd World cultures as inferior. European fairytales about man-eating ogres and witches suggests that there have been cannibals among the early Europeans as well. And given the depth of murderous activity which western people have proven capable of within the past century, and the fact that modern people have resorted to widespread cannabalism in this century during massive famines -- it is not too mind-boggling to think that here and there might have developed a cannabalistic war-like tribe. And yet, social scientists would ignore the evidence before their face out of fear that the facts might be politically embarassing to admit.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
[QB]

In other words, most social scientists try to interpret their findings in a way that is consistent with their socio-political objectives (e.g. raising the social status of 3rd World cultures).

[QB]



And then their interpretations cross over into the mainstream with Hollywood help("Dances with Wolves"), with federal law makers quoting those social scientists as they enable laws preventing new research, and with bogus professors ("Ward Churchill") indoctrinating generations into the establishment view.
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
indoctrinating generations into the establishment view.


Herman Goering was right, propaganda works.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:


Herman Goering was right, propaganda works.


Vyacheslav Molotov, a Soviet propagandist, agrees as well.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Its always fun to point out that DNA and artifact evidence shows Europeans were in North America 10-20,000 years ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/segments/1406-4.htm

There was some more recent DNA evidence this year, but my quickie google lookup missed it.


recent DNA evidence:
"Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was finally allowed to examine the remains and his conclusions were contradictory. Kennewick Man was in fact not European but rather resembled south Asians and the Ainu people of northeast Asia.[5] The results of a graphic comparison, including size, of Kennewick Man to 18 modern populations conducted by Chatters et al. to determine the skeleton�s relation to modern ancestry showed that he was most closely related to the Ainu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:


recent DNA evidence:
"Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was finally allowed to examine the remains and his conclusions were contradictory. Kennewick Man was in fact not European but rather resembled south Asians and the Ainu people of northeast Asia.[5] The results of a graphic comparison, including size, of Kennewick Man to 18 modern populations conducted by Chatters et al. to determine the skeleton�s relation to modern ancestry showed that he was most closely related to the Ainu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man



Yes?
Kennewick certainly isn't most recent DNA evidence as some of my other posts point out and it certainly doesnt contradict the facts showing an earlier arrival by actual Europeans. However, Kennewick is an excellent example of the establishment preventing research and politics getting in the way scientific inquiry. The whole achealogical site was quickly bulldozed over to prevent further research and only by very lengthy and costly court battles were scientists given a limited time to make the conclusions you allude (which still, by the way, jolted the establishment view).

How the whole debate plays out really doesnt alter my world one way or the other, but the original 60 Minutes TV expose of how Kennewick research was handled was upsetting.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Kennewick is certainly the oldest, most complete remains found till date.
http://www.rense.com/general28/stufy.htm
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:
Kennewick is certainly the oldest, most complete remains found till date.
http://www.rense.com/general28/stufy.htm


Holy cow, that link (even though the domain is not "reputable")supports what I've been saying regarding the suppression of evidence and the bulldozing of the achealogical site.

The "DNA tests that were unsuccessful" statement is not an earth shattering statement because I don't doubt that the results would contradict the other evidence. Still, has no bearing on other evidence that is older that supports the earlier European arrival.
Sri Anand
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 392
The strongest survives, to remain stronger will eliminate the weaker by all means science,technology , :roll: History has been consistent with this there is no exception here
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by Raghunandan Mamidala:
History has been consistent with this there is no exception here

History is written by the winners.

It may have little to do with truth
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:

History is written by the winners.

It may have little to do with truth


I can agree with you that the current establishment view that was created and maintained by Europeans may be false. Hence my posts here today and here:

"Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin."

http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm

This is all unclear and highly technical to the lay person such as me; there being varients and subvarients of this "X" mtDNA type, so maybe it is easier to simpler imply that anything against the orthodox view is false. Movies are better enjoyed without discussions on accuracy anyway.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


I can agree with you that the current establishment view that was created and maintained by Europeans may be false. Hence my posts here today and here:


quite right, but the question is how comfortable would the establishment be with the idea that the first people were not who were traditionally believed to be? and how comfortable would the average person be after pinning their hopes on Kennewick man(one of the oldest skeletons of the earliest individuals to be found in North America) to prove the European angle with his origin now proved to be non European?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060425183740.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man
[ August 27, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42286
    
  64
This is fun. Do all involved still know what they're arguing about, and why?


Ping & DNS - my free Android networking tools app
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:


quite right, but the question is how comfortable would the establishment be with the idea that the first people were not who were traditionally believed to be? and how comfortable would the average person be after pinning their hopes on Kennewick man(one of the oldest skeletons of the earliest individuals to be found in North America) to prove the European angle with his origin now proved to be non European?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060425183740.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

[ August 27, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]


Again, my points were ultimately, in some sense, about facts, not people's feelings or whether they're being "comfortable" with facts. I think its quite funny that you even consider that "the average person" would be "pinning their hopes" on Kennewick man. Really, its comedy now.

I reject this school of epitesmology that focuses, not on facts of any sort nor their discussion, but instead on the people and their feeling relationship with facts. Mankind has never, and will never, advance on that line of reasoning; only fall backwards.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
This is fun. Do all involved still know what they're arguing about, and why?


Its basicaly 2 different fundamental ideologies, diametrically opposed on this issue and many others not even discussed, that will never be at peace or reconciled. But I've did this many times. Tell me someone's position on about 3 or 4 issues and why they have that position, or why they think they have it, and I can predict their position on every other issue that exists or will exist with 85% accuracy. All opinions on all issues flow from a few core values and from a few key theories of epistimology.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


Again, my points were ultimately, in some sense, about facts, not people's feelings or whether they're being "comfortable" with facts. I think its quite funny that you even consider that "the average person" would be "pinning their hopes" on Kennewick man. Really, its comedy now.

I reject this school of epitesmology that focuses, not on facts of any sort nor their discussion, but instead on the people and their feeling relationship with facts. Mankind has never, and will never, advance on that line of reasoning; only fall backwards.


Facts is what my points have been based on as well, If you are referring to my earlier stance about treading with caution and taking into account all vested interests then that stance remains unchanged and has nothing to do with personal feeling but having a balanced view of the world taking into account all factors. Anyone who thinks that all research done in this world is completely sovereign has a much too optimistic a world view in my opinion. Vested interests donating money can and very often are involved in the determination of the general area of the research. Is this something that is unheard of? This is a fact. BUT This by no means was an attempt to cast a shadow over the character of people seeking the truth, but merely pointing out that its not very often that people would bite the hand that feeds them. This is also NOT to imply that funded studies should not lead to conceptual advances or newer insight that was previously unknown, and as the conclusions with Kennewick man has shown our knowledge about this issue has been advanced.
I believe personal feelings have crept into this thread at time and have often emanated from a personal bias that we so want to try to avoid. Statement like "the establishment has been trying to prevent" are based on feeling, as the truth about Kenewick would've never come to fore had the Justices not handed the defeating verdict to those who were claiming brotherhood with the fossil. Sure it took a few years, but in this case the establishment did all it could to remove stumbling blocks.
Statements of feelings were put forth when implying that lesser scientists not true to their research have their feelings cross over into pop culture which has its effects felt in federal law. Statements of personal feelings were also displayed automatically condemning Ward Churchill as 'Bogus'. This selective focus upon personal feelings which allows us to support the things we already believe or want to be true only serves to disfigure the ultimate truth which can be achieved only through fact I'm afraid.
Let me also say this would be my last post on this subject as I have more important things to fill my brain with. I am not an American, I don't live in America and I would rather choose American issues to be the domain of the American people.
[ August 28, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: U.S.A. or CHINA