Investigating intentional cranial modification in 3rd to 7th century CE Japan
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
... OK? I still have a really hard time pinning down a causal link between shellfish trade getting a boost and head flattening. Feels like the authors latching on to one notable fact about this group (they traded shellfish) and using it to whip up a motive for head flattening, because they had nothing else.
The authors are professionals, deeply embedded in a body of knowledge and practice, making a conjecture for an audience of their peers. They take for granted information, context, and training that most of us do not have.
Am I saying their credentials mean they’re right? Of course not. I have no idea.
What I’ve got instead is the epistemic humility to recognize that just because I am unqualified to evaluate this evidence doesn’t mean everybody is.
Hey, if turns out you’re an archaeologist I’ll happily eat crow. But somehow I think the local birds are safe tonight.
Sometimes, you don’t know something. Sometimes, you don’t even really want to know (or you’d ask a question)! When those times come around, and they will, it’s okay to just… not post.
(Edited to soften tone slightly)
Disclaimer: not an archeologist of course.
That said, I’d like some context about the link between trading and flat heads, because it’s really not obvious to me either.
In general, we should recognize experts, but not everyone in their field is an expert and expertise should not be overrated, either - expertise overrating is a major cultural problem we have today.
> The GP is asking a perfectly reasonable question about whether or not the hypothesis is at all justified.
The thing is that GP didn’t ask a question. They stated plainly that they “feel” it’s BS the authors “whipped up” because they had “nothing else to go on”.
I make no suggestion that we should agree with the authors. I do suggest that it’s wise to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that they’re acting in good faith whether right or wrong.
That’s what I’m ranting about, not that GP doesn’t agree with them.
And no, expertise should not be overrated, but surely it should be rated. Another major cultural problem we have is rank anti-intellectualism. A blithe dismissal of anything outside of one’s own common sense as not just wrong but actively disingenuous. That’s not a healthy skepticism, and it leads to no knowledge.
Even more tiring are people trying to silence discussion.
> it’s okay to just… not post.
Why not take your own advice?
Why are you here then? Don't read the comments and just read the articles. It's exhausting reading intentionally manipulative comments like yours.
Well, that's exactly what they said themselves, if you translate from scientifese.
A future equivalent could be deforming our crania in the form of invasive BCI to aid in different things.
The abstract also says “the Hirota people may have deformed their crania to preserve group identity”.
It’s also possible in the future that those who install invasive BCI could form a group identity.