I get what you're saying but I hear lots of things at the pub that I 'get', yet I don't let pub-talk set my expectations of what must be so.
I think the pub test is often spot on. Its using your own eyes when you see something that doesn't fit with the claims. But yest we need further investigations.
You, however, appear to take anecdotal comments as being statements of established deterministic trajectories of 'what must be so'(?)
Like what exactly. if we are going to stick to the facts I want to weed out these logical fallacies as happened in the last thread. This is a common ploy by some that they try to make out any suggestion of more advanced tech is psudoscience.
The human mind creates new knowledge with new perceptions. There's nothing pre-determined in order to conclude advanced knowledge always existed before human minds made up some new knowledge, which you (or others) then imagine as being out of order in some sort of predetermined time sequence you (or others) made up in the first place.
Yes there is. This is just so wrong even mainstream sciences admit that the knowledge and tech was far more advanced for that period. You are trying to blur the lines so that anything can be re-evaluated as not advanced but all depends on the context.
We have loads of data and writings that allude to more advancement in thinking, behaviour and beliefs than we thought. If anything its some who reject this who are using imagination to deny it. Its almost as though we cannot even measure any advancements under your definition.
Look, expectations in science are set purely by the evidence in hand. When new scientific evidence is distilled, expectations are reset.
There is no quantifiable values set for expectations in terms advanced (or retarded) knowledge. H&G's were solving different sets of problems compared with megalith builders. There is no measure to determine 'advanced knowledge' during either timeframes, without solid evidence.
I referred to the ancient Megaliths works in Peru compared to the later Incas. Do you think we can determine a difference in the level of tech and knowledge between these two. The mainstream science attributes the megaliths and precise works to the Incas. This shows how they are conflating two completely different levels of works with each other. The same for Egytian and other works throughout the wrold.
Its not myself who's focused on the subjective views of others, (whether they're scientists or not).
I'm not convinced you aren't focused on/swayed by the subjective opinions expressed in informal settings, (or YouTube entertainment), however.
I stated I wanted to get to the bottom of this and exclude the subjective. Surely there are some measures and criteria for this. For example the complex maths and geometry found in Egyptian vases going back to the earliest works compared to later works. Surely this can be one line of evidence that there was some advanced knowledge involved far earlier than we thought for simple and primitive H&G or just coming out of that period. Compared to later works.
Any conclusions formed about skill and knowledge levels, inferred using the scientific method, will be based on the last best tested model, using the last best tested results.
'Advanced knowledge' is just anecdotal pub-talk.
I disagree and so do a growing number of research, discoveries and science. At the very least without inferring anything about the level of tech and knowledge and what that represents we have evdience for advanced knowledge that is considered beyond what we thought for that level of evolution at the time. Just look at the scientific and not pub talk language used in mainstream.
The civilisation myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history
In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. We need to rethink the story of this monumental transition
www.newscientist.com
If this interpretation is correct, it has profound consequences. Partly, this is because it implies that astronomical knowledge was far in advance of what is generally assumed for this time.
Different problems being solved in different settings by different artisans,. That's all.
So you can't see any advancement in the building tech that represents each timeline. The simple rock structure of the first pic is just as advanced as the 2nd and 3rd. You can't see a progression.
I would not say that except in an informal setting and then it would not likely be a scientific inference, so it adds little/no value.
I see a different artisan, or groups of artisans, doing their respective things at two different times. That's all.
How do we know that this is just your personal opinion with statements like "I would not say" or "I see a different artisan, or groups of artisans". The science itself points to different levels of tech and advancement. Its like comparing a model T ford to a Lamborghini lol and you can't see any difference in the leve of tech.
Yes they were problems artisans had at that time. But the problems they overcome and expressed are completely different levels of skill and works. You can't see that.
Same as my comment above. Who says they were trying to copy anything? What is that conclusion based on?
Ah look at the doorways in the rough mud brick owrks that come later compared to the earlier granit works. This is even acknowledged by archeologists as an attempt by the INca to copy and pay respect for these more ancient and precise works in granite.
There are also walls with niches in a style closely reminiscent of Tiwanaku architecture, but of much cruder construction, on both sides of the shrine.
The secret Temple of Gold A view towards the entrance of the main cave of Ñaupa Iglesia, with the rock cut doorway in the foreground and...
unchartedruins.blogspot.com
This is a precision cut doorway in granite.
This is a later copy made from softer stone and less precise and crafted. If the Incas made the original works then why revert back to rough works. Often these rough works are added on to the precise megaliths, fill in spaces, and seem to honor and respect the earlier works.
The people themselves say they did not create these early works but were found and they added to them out of respect.
This same copycat works is seen throughout most cultures. For example later copies of the Egyptian granite vases from the pre dynastic period are found later in softer stone and even painted to look like granite.
The interesting thing is that these vases made in the hardest material like granite, diorite and Currumbin are acknowledged by mainstream to come from the very earliest pre dynastic and early dynastic period and then they stop. We then get the inferior vases and copies which can be made by the primitive tools found and despicted in the pics on walls that come much later.
The same with the megaliths themselves like the pyramids, temples, boxes and staues a;; later made in softer stone and less quality works. Even the so called inscriptions on these works are rough and imprecise compared to the work itself.
Why go to all that trouble to make sucvh quality works only to detract from them with rough inscriptions. This suggests that these worksd were found and then claimed by later Pharoahs like Ramese the 2nd who was known for using pre existing works.
.png)
