It’s only a surprise if you have preconceived ideas

Posted On: Aug 20th, 2019 at 06:51

Europe / Asia

Sometimes I scratch my head a lot, not due to fleas or lice, but when I read these articles.
It should be quite apparent by now that scientific knowledge is only valid at the current time, for tomorrow something comes along that changes preconceived ideas and so-called fact. There are countless quotes from many famous people who say, “science proceeds from one error to another”, or words to that effect, meaning that discoveries are only valid until a new one overrides the old.
That is why I have deep reservations about those who constantly babble on about science being the only method of truth seeking, when in fact today’s science is tomorrow’s defunct theory.
Of course, science has its place in our society. Without it we wouldn’t be where we are, technologically or otherwise, but in the case of archaeology and ancient history, those who stick to rigid ways of thinking are barking up the wrong tree at the best of times, and tunnel vision only succeeds in producing a distorted view of our past. Scholars are often experts in one particular field, and therefore are not seeing the wider picture.
So, I’m a bit confused why this finding is such a surprise. We know very little about the spread of humans across Europe and Asia, and the current model sits on a precarious chair which only has three legs. In fact, there are several models that need to be totally wiped off the chalkboard – the Out-of-Africa theory is as dead as the dodo; humans were clearly in the Americas far earlier than anthropologists believe; and it’s abundantly obvious there were other human species – perhaps our ancestors and breeding partners – all over the world and outside of Africa.
Only when we scrap these theories and start again will we actually begin to understand where we come from. Unfortunately, archaeologists and the like are constantly trying to fit new findings into these flawed models, and that is where we are going wrong. The problem is, those in positions of influence can often refuse to accept new data – papers are dismissed at the review process when they don’t fit the paradigm. For example, artefacts found in the Americas in layers 50,000 years old are immediately dismissed, thus removing them from public view. This must completely change, and until it does we will move very, very slowly with accepting new data.
So, it shouldn’t be a surprise to find new genetic data that doesn’t fit previous models. Genetic science is still relatively new and is itself flawed to a large degree. Far too many scientists place an element of accuracy into genetic data that doesn’t deserve to be there, and interpretation is still the dominant, and often wrong, application with that data.