At work.
What the what now?
Uhm..... you started mentioning 'The written word', not myself.
I asked you why you seemed to have such a high metric for 'The written word'.
My position was that there are/were more methods for transferring and storing information (As it pertains to human ideas) than just 'The written word'. Hence my recommendation to reading Prof Kelly's book.
As for archeologists and anthropologist? I would say 'Yes' they have robust methods for working out the dates of the things they are studying.
(December 27, 2018 at 1:06 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(December 26, 2018 at 11:50 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: What 'Magic'?
Or are you now seeking to change the label on something objective such as to dismiss things?
Anthopology and archeology both are the science of studying humanities (And our related, extinct, cousin species) history.
I admit to finding your insistence on the 'Written word' as the only metric to use strange.
That is a tu quoque fallacy. Any "Written word" has nothing to do with his claim. He either has something that objectively provides a date, or there's no reason to assume it as being objective.
As far as your objection on its own, I never dated anything in such a way, so I don't see why I would need to justify it.
What the what now?
Uhm..... you started mentioning 'The written word', not myself.
I asked you why you seemed to have such a high metric for 'The written word'.
My position was that there are/were more methods for transferring and storing information (As it pertains to human ideas) than just 'The written word'. Hence my recommendation to reading Prof Kelly's book.
As for archeologists and anthropologist? I would say 'Yes' they have robust methods for working out the dates of the things they are studying.
