DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
How is it different"? Sanzbir answered Ted's questions about early humans, and your response was that he can't accurately answer those questions because he wasn't there. How is that any different than a jury deciding that since none of them were there when a crime was committed, they can't accurately reach a verdict?
This is what Sanzir said that I had replied to:
↑
Simply put, before people figured out agriculture there simply wasn't enough time to do much thinking or inventing. People were too busy struggling to get food.
Compare to how RAPIDLY technology began advancing after the recent agricultural revolution, to how slower (comparatively) human progress was before that point.
Basically the more technology progresses, the less time we have to spend gathering resources, which gives us more and more time to progress technology, which gives us more technological progress, which frees up more time, etc. etc.
Then I said:
Not bad guesses. But you weren't there so the truth is that you cannot accurately answer the question.
Sanzir was simply guessing. He couldn't have known any of that as fact unless he was there and saw it for himself. I didn't see any links or stats or anything, just several guesses.
Scientists do this all the time. Sometimes they throw in some stats and numbers but they speak like Sanzir did, as if it were fact like they had seen it for themselves.
They haven't. It isn't fact. At all.