Why should we? In this and the other similar thread you have spoken with an aura of absolute authority. Why have you done such when you are now saying you need a considerable amount of time to study this issue? Where I’m from you do not dismiss the reasoned arguments of others, the citations from respected scientific authorities, and act as an expert when you have not done your homework. That is the worst kind of behavior.
Then don’t give me a month.
Anyways, I stay with my initial statement: there is no conclusive calculation of the population of the Americas at contact. Each expert arrive to its own figures, and most work with a sadistic joy trying to prove they got a higher number than the expert before. When “experts” arrive to a final figure, let me know.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and spell out for you what a logical fallacy is, and point them out for you. Here you go-
You said:
This is an example of the logical fallacy commonly called “No True Scotsman”, which is linked in the original post. The gist is that you define anyone who doesn’t agree with you out of the picture. You’re using it to define as ‘not a scientist’, anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion.
[Quote=pinguin]
Fellow, Rosenblat is a respected schollar. He made the statistics for the 500 years celebration of 1992. He studied the whole Latin American region, so why to doubt about him, and other experts that reache his same conclusions?
[/quote]
This is an example of the logical fallacy commonly called “Appeal to Authority”, which is linked in the original post. The gist is that you say “this guy is a known authority, therefore he is right”, rather than addressing the facts.
[Quote=pinguin]
Maximalists are idiots; by definition. That shows how easy is to become a professor of Latin American studies at Berkeley
[/quote]
This is an example of the logical fallacy commonly called “Argumentum ad hominem”, which is linked in the original post. The gist is that you attack the guy personally, or for some unrelated issue to discredit his opinion. I called it ‘common or garden’ because we get lots of them, they’re not rare.
Is that clearer? Sure you can ask where they got there numbers. We’d also like to know where you got these other numbers, but Bartman is doing a good job helping you with citations.
I’m not sure how long you’ve been posting here, but this isn’t a place where people are going to let you make some claim, and then simply say “I’m right” as a conclusion to the debate. This isn’t a street corner or a bar where people are rambling on about random stuff with no evidence to support it.
In this debate there were really two approaches you could have taken. You could have actually made an argument supported by evidence as to why you think the conclusions of high-counters are wrong. You probably think you have done that already, but you haven’t at all. All you’ve said is “the high count estimates don’t make sense, and go against what I believe to be correct.” Sorry, that’s of no value at all. You’ve also said they don’t square with “the chronicles of the time” what chronicles? Without giving us specific texts that you believe show the high counters to be wrong, we have no way of verifying anything you say. Essentially you’re asking us to just take you at your word that you’ve read all kinds of original source texts from the period and that they say what you claim they do.
A second approach you could have taken, without even addressing any problems with the high counter methodology, is simply strongly advocate for the low count. Given us some reason to believe the low count was correct. Again, you may think you’ve done this, but all you’ve done is type some numbers into a box and say “Rosenblat” without showing us where he made those claims. Because you haven’t done that, we can’t verify that he ever made the specific claims you say he did, we can’t analyze his methodology and decide whether or not it was particularly robust.
Instead, all you’ve done is say things and expect us to believe them because you’ve said them. When called on it, you say “well let me do my research it’ll take some time.” When people give you citations you do not address them on your merits, you just make fantastical claims such as saying Berkeley can’t produce good researchers if they don’t agree with you, or by dismissing out of hand anything that doesn’t agree with your argument.
You’re essentially acting like the debate equivalent of a baby, and babies should not be treated as adults by a group of adults having a debate.
Do you realize you, in this one phrase, countered your own argument? If no one can now how many people there were, what makes your opinion any better? Why shouldn’t I dismiss you as a minimalist?
You run around acting like you’ve got the word of God in hand, apparently haven’t actually read many of the major sources and lines of argument, and the very evidence you cited not only doesn’t support you, it supports your targets!
So you agree then that physics and history share the same epistemological basis? Observations are made. Models are proposed. And our confidence in these models is strengthened or weakened by future observations.
Note, however, in both physics and history, NOTHING is ever PROVED.
Well then, demonstrate the methodological flaws in the studies you disagree with. Show why our confidence level in them should be low.
But dismissing them out of hand because they use “statistics” and “number-crunching” (or because they fail to “prove” their point) is ridiculous.
[sarcasm] I am shocked… just shocked that pinguin has declined to offer any rebuttal of the Denevan paper. [/sarcasm]
Although his suggestion that he should be given a month to study it before he is expected to respond is… ballsy to say the least.
Here is the deal pinguin, put up or shut up. We are over 180 posts into this train-wreck and you still haven’t clearly stated what your argument is. It seems to keep moving. You can’t seem to decide if your point is that the low-counters are correct or that no population estimate (including the low-counters) can be accurate. And for a while you seemed to be arguing that there were no major diseases and instead the indigenous peoples disappeared primarily through intermarriage. I have tried a few different times now to get an actual discussion started, and every time you have instead gone off on some weird little nutty rant instead. And I am hardly the only one who has tried to rescue this thread to relevance. Dr. Drake tried to engage you on epidemics, and instead you insulted his education. Exapno Mapcase tried several times to engage you on demographics, you dismissed this as being “as reliable as astrology.”
I would recommend that you either admit you have been wrong, take a deep breath and just stop posting in this thread, or post some evidence that supports your argument… whatever that actually is.
Actually, no one has attacked you, only pointing out the errors of your posts–errors they actually quoted. That is how debates are conducted, here, whether by “lawyers” or by scientists. You on the other hand have failed to provide anything more than hand-waving and insults. This will stop or you will be Warned for ignoring Moderator instructions.
FWIW Pinguin is doing the same thing over in this thread.
Pinguin: Read the chronicles of Cabeza de Vaca. He described a world with a very low population density, and lot of problems to survive for lack of food.
Blake: No he didn’t. He said “the country [along the Rio Grande in New Mexico] is incredibly populous”. He said “[on the Gila River New Mexico] we got to the [Opata] people of permanent houses who had plenty of corn.” He said “we marched more than 210 miles through continuously inhabited country of such domiciles, where corn and beans remained plentiful”. Those are not descriptions of a world with a very low population density and lack of food.
Pinguin: I actually read it, and the story is quite pathetic. Wealthy farmers? Gimme a break.
Blake: I just quoted from the book. Now if you would care to quote where he says that a majority of people he encountered in the US were hungry HGs I would appreciate that.
Pinguin: I will find some quotes for you by Cabeza de Vaca, who wrote in my mother tongue.
Blake: Still waiiting
Pinguin: Take it easy. It will take me a month to compile the refference.
Martin Hyde: Maybe you could provide even one quote while you take the month required
Pinguin: Ok. But I’ll have to find the book in my library. It will take me hours!!! Anyways, I’ll do.
Blake: Been 24 hours. Still waiting.
Anyone seeing a pattern here? Pinguin makes multiple absolute assertions about how low the American population was. When he is shown evidence that flatly contradicts that he suddenly requires a month to address it. Even when the evidence is in references that he introduced.
In the meantime he has plenty of time to keep posting the same nonsense.
OK. Believe what you want. If you believe there were tens of millions of people in the U.S. by contact, then don’t complain when political activists accuse the U.S. of a genocide larger than the holocaust. Anyways, that’s your problem, not mine.
I asked a question, started a thread, and I found out a circus.
I am not interested in rethorical discussions. The point is, I didn’t get any information in here, and even more. Instead of saving work, I was asked to start my own research.
Give me a break.
The only person who has ever made such an accusation is you.
Everybody else knows that at least 90% of those people died of disease disease.
No, you:
- Made a lot of ludicrous assertions
- Engaged in fallacious arguments
- Refused to clarify what point you are even trying to make.
- Dismissed numerous reputable references provided by other posters.
- Were asked for evidence, kept promising you would provide references and never did so.
And as a result of that behavior your arguments were dismissed.
That is *all *that you are interested in. You refuse to discussion evidence in any way whatsoever.
We know.
We presented huge amounts of evidence of the highest calibre, and you never got any of it.
No, you were not.
You have been given more breaks than any other poster I can recall.
No. I have not made a ridiculos assertion.
I just said nobody knows the real population figure of the Americas at contact.
Besides, I said what I believe it was the closest figure.
I just make fun of those rock star scientists that come up with “exciting” new theories.
So you have given what you believe is a fair figure, without any backing, and thus cant be considered a ridiculous assertion, while those other scientist type guys have given what they believe is a fair figure themselves, usually with some backing, that can only be regarded as ridiculous assertions?
The term “masturbatory” comes to mind everytime I have to read your prose.
It is a smart thing to haunt “Great Debates” when you have an aversion to rethorical discussions…
It is curious how that idea comes to your mind. I though you were an adult, and not an excited teen :smack:
Try working on giving the same impression.
This is my argument. And please, stop the circus. At least you are the official clown.
Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as “pseudo-scientific number-crunching.” Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying “high counters” (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.
**
Capitaine Zombie and pinguin, you both need to stop the personal insults.
(In addition, I would note that insulting references to masturbation are explicitly forbidden in this forum.)
[ /Moderating ]
You have been repeatedly told that your insulting behavior is inappropriate. Direct personal insults are a direct violation of the rules.
You Warned to stop this behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
You actually dont need a census taken at the time period you’re researching to figure out what was the size of a population.
Simply knowing the farming techniques and the lands available for farming can tell you that. It’s an estimation, but it doesnt come out of thin air. And it’s the technique applied to all cultures or societies studied by archeologists.