I have gotten the dig dates, which will be the last two weeks in July, and we have the students we'll be working with all signed up. They appear to be a great group of kids, I honestly can't wait to get them in the field and see what they're capable of.
So, Monday we will be heading up to the site to do the initial surface collection. In the CRM world we call this a Phase I, Pedestrian Survey. We'll be calling this a pedestrian survey as well, but we already know there is stuff here, we're just looking for the best place to dig so we don't waist our short two weeks. The kids and my mentor will be going back Tuesday, but I have to work at the museum. Hopefully well find all the cool stuff the day I'm there!
Only one downer, all my dig tools got stolen this weekend. I miss my trowel, it was my first, and I had it for five years...sad. I'll get a new one, but it won't be the same...still I am looking forward to getting dirty again.
I'll post again after Monday, and see if I can't put up some nice pictures. Stay tuned!
Where Reality and Archaeology Meet. Digg?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
George Boxley from Grant to Dig
Recently I was given the opportunity to assist with a dig from the ground up. Which means, assisting in the grant writing phase as well. Assisting may be the operative word here, but any experience is good.
What this also means is that I have a new obsession, a charming man by the name of George Boxley (fear not, this entry will be edited soon.) Probably the best resource for Mr. Boxley's life is a very intresting account published by the Sheridan Historical Socoity titled "A Man with a Price on His Head: The Life and Times of George Boxley."
Boxley is important in that he was an every day man, who did something purposeful when it could have cost him his life. He was an early Abolitionist who truly stood up for his beliefs. To add to my personal attraction, he was quite the intellectual. He championed education and was an early Humanist, and skeptical of God. His life story reads like some kind of movie script, and the details may have been embellished a bit, but it still portrays a remarkable man who may have had just a touch of genius.
Obviously I'm a bit biased, he is the current focus of my life, still, I plan to share him with the rest of you as I learn more. Also, I thought this particular journey of mine might be of some interest for those who have wondered how an archaeological dig gets up and running.
Stick with me as I venture into the world of red-tape and golden-trowels...
What this also means is that I have a new obsession, a charming man by the name of George Boxley (fear not, this entry will be edited soon.) Probably the best resource for Mr. Boxley's life is a very intresting account published by the Sheridan Historical Socoity titled "A Man with a Price on His Head: The Life and Times of George Boxley."
Boxley is important in that he was an every day man, who did something purposeful when it could have cost him his life. He was an early Abolitionist who truly stood up for his beliefs. To add to my personal attraction, he was quite the intellectual. He championed education and was an early Humanist, and skeptical of God. His life story reads like some kind of movie script, and the details may have been embellished a bit, but it still portrays a remarkable man who may have had just a touch of genius.
Obviously I'm a bit biased, he is the current focus of my life, still, I plan to share him with the rest of you as I learn more. Also, I thought this particular journey of mine might be of some interest for those who have wondered how an archaeological dig gets up and running.
Stick with me as I venture into the world of red-tape and golden-trowels...
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Archaeology on the Wikipedia
Unless you live in a very deep cave somewhere uncharted, you no doubt have heard of the wonder that is Wikipedia. The intriguing site where the common individual can write and edit encyclopedic like entries on anything their minds can come up with. In recent years this phenom of a site has become the number one place to go when you need information. Scary as this sounds, it's true.
I myself check the Wiki regularly on all kinds of topics, from TV shows to Famous Figures. I like to think of it as being a good starting point in the long journey of research. I would never cite it in an actual paper, but I will say its settled a few arguments.
Why bring all this up you ask?
Well because I've made the half mad decision to join the WikiProject for Archaeology and become part of the group that bring you information on Archaeology. It's kind of a big step for me since I barely know how to use the Wiki beyond the search box, let alone make and edit pages. So yah, in my spare time I will be learning how to do these things, and then contributing.
Mainly I will focus on Midwest sties, and clarifying Methods, Principles, and Theory. They say the best way to learn is to teach, and its time I make that big leap. The nice thing will be that the community of editors will help keep me honest, or that's the hope anyway.
So to those of you who are also archaeologists out there, I extend a invitation to do as I have done, and come further the world of archaeology on the inter web, one reliable article at a time.
Look for my Talk Page on the Wiki.
I myself check the Wiki regularly on all kinds of topics, from TV shows to Famous Figures. I like to think of it as being a good starting point in the long journey of research. I would never cite it in an actual paper, but I will say its settled a few arguments.
Why bring all this up you ask?
Well because I've made the half mad decision to join the WikiProject for Archaeology and become part of the group that bring you information on Archaeology. It's kind of a big step for me since I barely know how to use the Wiki beyond the search box, let alone make and edit pages. So yah, in my spare time I will be learning how to do these things, and then contributing.
Mainly I will focus on Midwest sties, and clarifying Methods, Principles, and Theory. They say the best way to learn is to teach, and its time I make that big leap. The nice thing will be that the community of editors will help keep me honest, or that's the hope anyway.
So to those of you who are also archaeologists out there, I extend a invitation to do as I have done, and come further the world of archaeology on the inter web, one reliable article at a time.
Look for my Talk Page on the Wiki.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Absence of Evidence
"This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ~ Carl Sagan
The first time I heard this quote was in field school. We'd spent the majority of the summer excavating the residence of Dr. J.H. Ward and found about nothing...though I did learn that a claw hammer will totally own century old cement...
When asked what he was going to say about the residence since we'd had such a lean collection of artifacts, Dr. Mullins told me, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This was quickly followed with a rather comical debate over what a particular artifact really was to which I was told, "When you hear hoof beats, think Horses not Zebras."
I took both quotes to heart, often repeating them to myself when faced with questions in the field. I still like both, even though recently I learned that the Carl Sagan quote is actually a misquote. The full quote is listed above and can be found on Wikiquote...or better yet in his book Demon-Haunted World
To put it in context, Sagan uses this phrase in his "Baloney Detection Kit". He uses it as a tool to identify and reject an "appeal to ignorance". The phrase appears in Chapter 12, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in the "The Demon-Haunted World"
So, this quote didn't mean what I thought it meant. What Sagan appears to be doing here is pointing out that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
What does this have to do with archaeology you ask? Oh my, so much. Especially when you are dealing with pseudoarchaeology.
I've been doing research for a video that will be on Ancient Astronauts building the Pyramids, not a topic I was familiar with, and frankly the more I "learn" the more my brain hurts. What I've been finding is that Ancient Astronauts supporters use the appeal to ignorance to support their claims, up to the point of quoting Sagan. This tells me is that not only do they not know anything about ancient Egyptian civilization / building techniques, they also have never read Sagan. This bothers me since in both cases they are speaking as if from positions of authority, and five minutes on the internet can blow their arguments out of the water.
I blame von Daniken for this. The man simply refuses to see fact, even when it's place right before him. He is also a prolific author
on the topic of pseudoarchaeolgoy, claiming that professional archaeologists either don't know what they are doing, or are purposefully covering up the "truth". To him I ask, what do we have to gain by hiding the truth?
Daniken likes to point to known artifacts, hieroglyphs, and paintings, claiming that Archaeologists translated them incorrectly, that they are really ancient depictions of aliens, or even parts of a spaceship. He goes as far as to say that everything we know is wrong, and we have something to gain by not telling the lay public the truth. Daniken apparently never had the benefit of someone telling him to think Horses not Zebras.
To all this I say, Ancient Astronauts supporters: you have no evidence, you have no facts, most damningly, you have no practical applied experience. When you misquote Sagan, you show you have no grasp of basic concepts. As in all things, Occam's Razor comes into play, and since your extraordinary claims cannot be backed with extraordinary evidence, you really should let it go. Have a little faith in your own species, we really are a very clever and capable ape.
The first time I heard this quote was in field school. We'd spent the majority of the summer excavating the residence of Dr. J.H. Ward and found about nothing...though I did learn that a claw hammer will totally own century old cement...
When asked what he was going to say about the residence since we'd had such a lean collection of artifacts, Dr. Mullins told me, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This was quickly followed with a rather comical debate over what a particular artifact really was to which I was told, "When you hear hoof beats, think Horses not Zebras."
I took both quotes to heart, often repeating them to myself when faced with questions in the field. I still like both, even though recently I learned that the Carl Sagan quote is actually a misquote. The full quote is listed above and can be found on Wikiquote...or better yet in his book Demon-Haunted World
To put it in context, Sagan uses this phrase in his "Baloney Detection Kit". He uses it as a tool to identify and reject an "appeal to ignorance". The phrase appears in Chapter 12, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in the "The Demon-Haunted World"
"appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
So, this quote didn't mean what I thought it meant. What Sagan appears to be doing here is pointing out that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
What does this have to do with archaeology you ask? Oh my, so much. Especially when you are dealing with pseudoarchaeology.
I've been doing research for a video that will be on Ancient Astronauts building the Pyramids, not a topic I was familiar with, and frankly the more I "learn" the more my brain hurts. What I've been finding is that Ancient Astronauts supporters use the appeal to ignorance to support their claims, up to the point of quoting Sagan. This tells me is that not only do they not know anything about ancient Egyptian civilization / building techniques, they also have never read Sagan. This bothers me since in both cases they are speaking as if from positions of authority, and five minutes on the internet can blow their arguments out of the water.
I blame von Daniken for this. The man simply refuses to see fact, even when it's place right before him. He is also a prolific author
on the topic of pseudoarchaeolgoy, claiming that professional archaeologists either don't know what they are doing, or are purposefully covering up the "truth". To him I ask, what do we have to gain by hiding the truth?Daniken likes to point to known artifacts, hieroglyphs, and paintings, claiming that Archaeologists translated them incorrectly, that they are really ancient depictions of aliens, or even parts of a spaceship. He goes as far as to say that everything we know is wrong, and we have something to gain by not telling the lay public the truth. Daniken apparently never had the benefit of someone telling him to think Horses not Zebras.
To all this I say, Ancient Astronauts supporters: you have no evidence, you have no facts, most damningly, you have no practical applied experience. When you misquote Sagan, you show you have no grasp of basic concepts. As in all things, Occam's Razor comes into play, and since your extraordinary claims cannot be backed with extraordinary evidence, you really should let it go. Have a little faith in your own species, we really are a very clever and capable ape.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Why it's Hard to Debate the Scientifically Illiterate
I’ve been wanting to write this entry for a while, since it’s a growing area of concern for me, I am of course talking of the decline of Scientific Literacy in America, and specifically the Midwest, since that’s where I’m from. I feel that we as a country are racing towards a dark age of our own, where ignorance is seen as a virtue, and education is look down upon. I see this in the rejection of “Elites” and “Scientists” and the constant attacks on legitimate scientists by people who barely understand the concepts being discussed. I see feelings and beliefs trumping facts and evidence, and I see misunderstandings of facts and evidence being used as attacks against scientific fields.
This is a hard article to write because of the people I know who will read this and feel that I am speaking directly to them…which I am…but what I have to say isn’t really friendly.
It is difficult to have discussions about scientific fields with people who are not educated. The reason is because those who are not scientifically literate can’t understand the basic concepts of science. This becomes very aggravating when these same people insist that Scientists and science are wrong.
The knee jerk reaction is to be unpleasant to these people, and as rewarding as this may seem, it’s not the best reaction. So what is the alternative? How do you discuss things with those who can’t understand? How you debate the merits of a theory, when the other party doesn't understand what a theory is? This is the dilemma.
We could spend time educating our opponents. We could lay information at their feet, send them videos, talks, books, papers, but it won’t matter if they can’t understand what is being said. We could attempt to go back to the basics with them, but personal experience has shown that this usually upsets people because they view this as talking down to them. It seems like a huge waste of time, but something must be done, so what?
A few sites on the web have attempted to address this problem. Some are aimed at making science accessible to the general public, some are more like support groups. Richard Dawkins and the Amazing James Randi both started educational foundations, Dr. Jeff Goldstein created a blog to be used by teachers to help with student education on the Universe, Hank Campbell, has created a site to promote what he calls Science 2.0, and there are several forums like the League of Reason and Science Blogs that give individuals a space to create a scientific dialogue. Whatever the reason for going to the sites, I think anyone can start to delve into the world of science and self educate. I am a big supporter of self-education, not only does it show that a persona has recognized a weakness, but they’ve taken action to fix it.
Still, many will not go to these sites for one reason or another, but still feel they have a right to be part of the dialogue. What then? How do you debate with the ignorant? I offer Dawkins’ Solution, He simply doesn't.
Cold? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
I wouldn’t go to my mechanic and argue with him on the ways to repair my car. I wouldn't go to a construction site and tell them how their building is wrong. So why should I tolerate someone coming to me to tell me my field is wrong?
So why do people think that by simply reading a half-assed synopsis of an elaborate scientific paper, that they know have all the knowledge they require to challenge career scientists? Just because we live in the Information Age, doesn’t mean you now know everything. Some things require focus and education. Things like advice concepts, require study before they are understood completely. Sometimes, things will never be entirely clear, and often the ability to distinguish those from things that are clear needs to be learned as well. Some theories are not up for debate, and some are. Unless you understand how theories are made and tested, you can’t distinguish between the two.
The point here is not to tell those who don’t know not to talk about science. The point here is that you should take the time to become educated in the topics you wish to discuss. Some will be easier to learn than others, the Scientific Method is a pretty simple concept, as is the formation and testing of a theory. Some will take years, and hours and hours of study. You may need to read books, watch videos, talk to experts in the field. This is the process of education, and education always leads to better understanding.
This is a hard article to write because of the people I know who will read this and feel that I am speaking directly to them…which I am…but what I have to say isn’t really friendly.
It is difficult to have discussions about scientific fields with people who are not educated. The reason is because those who are not scientifically literate can’t understand the basic concepts of science. This becomes very aggravating when these same people insist that Scientists and science are wrong.
The knee jerk reaction is to be unpleasant to these people, and as rewarding as this may seem, it’s not the best reaction. So what is the alternative? How do you discuss things with those who can’t understand? How you debate the merits of a theory, when the other party doesn't understand what a theory is? This is the dilemma.
We could spend time educating our opponents. We could lay information at their feet, send them videos, talks, books, papers, but it won’t matter if they can’t understand what is being said. We could attempt to go back to the basics with them, but personal experience has shown that this usually upsets people because they view this as talking down to them. It seems like a huge waste of time, but something must be done, so what?
A few sites on the web have attempted to address this problem. Some are aimed at making science accessible to the general public, some are more like support groups. Richard Dawkins and the Amazing James Randi both started educational foundations, Dr. Jeff Goldstein created a blog to be used by teachers to help with student education on the Universe, Hank Campbell, has created a site to promote what he calls Science 2.0, and there are several forums like the League of Reason and Science Blogs that give individuals a space to create a scientific dialogue. Whatever the reason for going to the sites, I think anyone can start to delve into the world of science and self educate. I am a big supporter of self-education, not only does it show that a persona has recognized a weakness, but they’ve taken action to fix it.
Still, many will not go to these sites for one reason or another, but still feel they have a right to be part of the dialogue. What then? How do you debate with the ignorant? I offer Dawkins’ Solution, He simply doesn't.
Cold? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
I wouldn’t go to my mechanic and argue with him on the ways to repair my car. I wouldn't go to a construction site and tell them how their building is wrong. So why should I tolerate someone coming to me to tell me my field is wrong?
So why do people think that by simply reading a half-assed synopsis of an elaborate scientific paper, that they know have all the knowledge they require to challenge career scientists? Just because we live in the Information Age, doesn’t mean you now know everything. Some things require focus and education. Things like advice concepts, require study before they are understood completely. Sometimes, things will never be entirely clear, and often the ability to distinguish those from things that are clear needs to be learned as well. Some theories are not up for debate, and some are. Unless you understand how theories are made and tested, you can’t distinguish between the two.
The point here is not to tell those who don’t know not to talk about science. The point here is that you should take the time to become educated in the topics you wish to discuss. Some will be easier to learn than others, the Scientific Method is a pretty simple concept, as is the formation and testing of a theory. Some will take years, and hours and hours of study. You may need to read books, watch videos, talk to experts in the field. This is the process of education, and education always leads to better understanding.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A Moment to Celebrate
As many of you may (or my not) know, tomorrow is the National Day of Reason. My local Center for Inquiry is going to be celebrating by having an open mic reading session where we'll share some of our favorite secular writers.
I'm really looking forward to this particular celebration, because I don't think we celebrate our minds and the ability we have to reason our way through life's problems enough. We're always trying to find some supernatural explanation for why we were able to do something, or think of something, or create something particularly wonderful. That kind of belief degrades us as humans. It makes us turn from our own natural strengthens and stop relying on our natural abilities. It makes us weak and fosters mistrust of others.
Whether you believe a supernatural being is guiding you doesn’t change the fact that the ideas you have, and the things you do, all come from you. You got the A on your paper, You passed the test, You got over your addiction, You made your business successful, You created a loving family. You did all these things all on your own, or with the help of other human begins. This is something to truly be awed over, to really be proud of.
Yah the pendulum swings both ways, If you are the one that does all the good stuff, then you are also the one that does all the bad stuff too. There is comfort in this though. Instead of wondering what you did to anger the supernatural beings, or wonder why the supernatural beings are testing/punishing you, you can change. You can identify the problem and figure out a way to stop it or fix it. You can, you've done it all your life.
So tomorrow, during our National Day of Reason, I want you to stop and think about all the things you've done in life, the good more than the bad. I want to you to acknowledge that you did those things, on your own, and I want you to be proud of yourself, proud of your fantastic mind, and praise yourself.
I'm really looking forward to this particular celebration, because I don't think we celebrate our minds and the ability we have to reason our way through life's problems enough. We're always trying to find some supernatural explanation for why we were able to do something, or think of something, or create something particularly wonderful. That kind of belief degrades us as humans. It makes us turn from our own natural strengthens and stop relying on our natural abilities. It makes us weak and fosters mistrust of others.
Whether you believe a supernatural being is guiding you doesn’t change the fact that the ideas you have, and the things you do, all come from you. You got the A on your paper, You passed the test, You got over your addiction, You made your business successful, You created a loving family. You did all these things all on your own, or with the help of other human begins. This is something to truly be awed over, to really be proud of.
Yah the pendulum swings both ways, If you are the one that does all the good stuff, then you are also the one that does all the bad stuff too. There is comfort in this though. Instead of wondering what you did to anger the supernatural beings, or wonder why the supernatural beings are testing/punishing you, you can change. You can identify the problem and figure out a way to stop it or fix it. You can, you've done it all your life.
So tomorrow, during our National Day of Reason, I want you to stop and think about all the things you've done in life, the good more than the bad. I want to you to acknowledge that you did those things, on your own, and I want you to be proud of yourself, proud of your fantastic mind, and praise yourself.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Attacking Darwin is Sooo Irrelevant ....
No really it is. And why you ask?
Darwin's book, Origin of Species
, was originally published in 1859. For the next fourteen years, Darwin edited his own work, radically changing some parts and at times removing them completely. Ben Fry created an awesome web site where you can track the changes made. It's a really fun site, check it out. So, Darwin himself continued to change, or dare I say evolve, his own theory throughout his life.
From the moment Darwin published his ground breaking work, scientists examined and tested it. They continue to do so today. His theory became a global topic, and still is. Most importantly, his theory, through being repetitively tested, has been refined and cleaned up so that we have the finely hammered out version we have today...thanks to the Scientific Method.
So now that we've got that out of the way, let me really begin.
Recently a certain argument has begun to drive me crazy, that being that something, somewhere in the Darwin's Origin of Species was wrong.
And? What's your point?
Ok, so somewhere in a book that is 150 years old a guy using some outdated scientific methods got something, usually unrelated to his main theory, wrong? That's your reason for ignoring the some 1000 or more modern scientific texts that have tested and proven the main theory of said 150 year old book, and found it valid? Really?
Recently, the observation was made that Creationists seem to think that Origins is our bible. That they seem to think I spend my days and night pouring over the pages, memorizing passages, and finding some spiritual comfort from the words. It really struck me to think that one over.
Honestly, the last time I even cracked open a copy of Origins was to double check a single passage quoted at me by a Creationist. I can't say I've even read Origins all the way through, not even in college where I learned about Evolution. The fact that a Creationist appeared to know more about Origins than I did bothered me, until I realized that it's irrelevant.
The Theory of Evolution, Darwin's main point in Origins, is beyond Darwin. It is more than one man, its more than one book. The Theory of Evolution is a time tested, scientifically valid theory, of which we have more evidence to support than the Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution has evolved past Darwin, the problems examined, and the kinks worked out. Thanks to 150 years of scientific examination, evolution is one of the most sound theory in science, used in nearly every field of science from medicine to Anthropology. It doesn't matter if 150 years ago, Darwin forgot to put a comma in a sentence. It doesn't matter if he made some horribly quote-mined and out of context comment about an eye. Evolution still holds, its still valid, and all your misquotes and paraphrasing isn't going to change that.
So, in conclusion, attacking Darwin, or any of his books doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I don't need to have memorized a 150 year old book to understand how evolution works. I have an education, I have an understating of the scientific method. I know how this stuff works. I know that a single quote-mined passage from 150 years ago will never invalidate 150 years worth of scientific testing. Get over it.
Darwin's book, Origin of Species
, was originally published in 1859. For the next fourteen years, Darwin edited his own work, radically changing some parts and at times removing them completely. Ben Fry created an awesome web site where you can track the changes made. It's a really fun site, check it out. So, Darwin himself continued to change, or dare I say evolve, his own theory throughout his life. From the moment Darwin published his ground breaking work, scientists examined and tested it. They continue to do so today. His theory became a global topic, and still is. Most importantly, his theory, through being repetitively tested, has been refined and cleaned up so that we have the finely hammered out version we have today...thanks to the Scientific Method.
So now that we've got that out of the way, let me really begin.
Recently a certain argument has begun to drive me crazy, that being that something, somewhere in the Darwin's Origin of Species was wrong.
And? What's your point?
Ok, so somewhere in a book that is 150 years old a guy using some outdated scientific methods got something, usually unrelated to his main theory, wrong? That's your reason for ignoring the some 1000 or more modern scientific texts that have tested and proven the main theory of said 150 year old book, and found it valid? Really?
Recently, the observation was made that Creationists seem to think that Origins is our bible. That they seem to think I spend my days and night pouring over the pages, memorizing passages, and finding some spiritual comfort from the words. It really struck me to think that one over.
Honestly, the last time I even cracked open a copy of Origins was to double check a single passage quoted at me by a Creationist. I can't say I've even read Origins all the way through, not even in college where I learned about Evolution. The fact that a Creationist appeared to know more about Origins than I did bothered me, until I realized that it's irrelevant.
The Theory of Evolution, Darwin's main point in Origins, is beyond Darwin. It is more than one man, its more than one book. The Theory of Evolution is a time tested, scientifically valid theory, of which we have more evidence to support than the Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution has evolved past Darwin, the problems examined, and the kinks worked out. Thanks to 150 years of scientific examination, evolution is one of the most sound theory in science, used in nearly every field of science from medicine to Anthropology. It doesn't matter if 150 years ago, Darwin forgot to put a comma in a sentence. It doesn't matter if he made some horribly quote-mined and out of context comment about an eye. Evolution still holds, its still valid, and all your misquotes and paraphrasing isn't going to change that.
So, in conclusion, attacking Darwin, or any of his books doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I don't need to have memorized a 150 year old book to understand how evolution works. I have an education, I have an understating of the scientific method. I know how this stuff works. I know that a single quote-mined passage from 150 years ago will never invalidate 150 years worth of scientific testing. Get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)