[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: maize in ancient India: transpacific links (cont.)
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Paul J. Gans (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> : The difficulties with the trans-pacific maize theory are obvious.
> : If it was, in fact, introduced and used with sufficient frequency
> : to be *abundant* in temple carvings, there should be ample evidence
> : of it in the archaeological record.
> So it should, Paul. And?
> Did the critics of Johannessen who published their criticisms try to
> disprove Johannessen by an appeal to the archaeological record? No. Why
> not if it _really_ shows so clearly that maize was not a staple at the
Because negative evidence doesn't "prove" or disprove anything.
> My guess is that the evidence one way or the other is lacking. More
> studies need to be done in this area.
Your guess? Not very scientific. Why don't you delve into site
reports instead of expecting everyone else to do it?
> Before my critics jump in again with their questionable "exercises in
> logical methodology", and try to say that "you cannot disprove anything",
Strawman, Yuri. Please demonstrate that someone told you
that "you cannot disprove anything". People have told you
repeatedly you that negative evidence cannot "prove" or disprove
anything. This is why hypoteses must be carefully structured
to be based on evidence and to be falsifiable.
> and other such half-baked ideas -- I'll say that it should be, and is,
> given that an effort is made in this direction, VERY SIMPLE to determine
> which were the staple crops in any given area at any given time. If these
> staples for the relevant areas do not include maize -- then Johannessen is
> Or, at least, his thesis is weakened significantly.
> some real logic for a change...
That'll be a change.