I have some expertise in the origins, history and environment of my country. I don’t need titles to make wrong calculations, actually. My only point is that the supposed census that took place at 1492 it never took place, and nobody knows how many people lived at the Americas at contact.
And no one conducted any European-wide census in 1340. Would you like to dispute the figures from the Black Death while you’re at it?
Conceded. Though, if you would, point out the “supposed census” that you mention. Because I’ve never seen anyone point to a census that occurred in the Americas in 1492.
Is that right? Does that include the scientific study of human history and population estimation?
No one is asking you for titles. Do you have any solid basis for disputing scientifically derived estimates? Or is it just because they violate your intuition?
What “supposed census”? Isn’t this just you dishonestly mischaracterizing the serious work of actual people who have studied the question and are offering educated estimates?
Nobody knows for certain a lot of things. That doesn’t mean that we don’t try to make educated guesses about them. And educated guesses are better than intuition.
I’ll note that you haven’t yet offered any particular scientific estimate up for criticism, much less offered any specific criticism of the assumptions, procedures, or conclusions of such a criticism.
We have to estimate the pre-Columbus population of the Americas somehow.
What is the question?
How do scholars make their estimates?
Why are the numbers are so far off from what you think it should be?
What do you think the population was at the time?
Why do you have an issue with the numbers scholars have?
Is it only that you disbelieve the total?
You are confusing minor uncertainties in detail with complete ignorance. To borrow an example from Isaac Asimov, it’s equivalent to arguing that because our understanding of the earth’s shape is uncertain, being refined from “sphere” to “oblate spheroid” to “pear-shaped”, then it’s possible that the Earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
I don’t know whether it is considered poor form to intruduce quotes from another thread, please correct me if it is…
From “What if all continents had been in regular communication since ancient times?”
Irrelevant. Intuition is not the topic.
The problem is science hasn’t provide any proof of the actual population size at contact, other that estimations based on guessings.
So? What’s your point? In any case, measuring the demography of Europe is an easier task, given the writen records still exist.
I am only concern in that the figure “90% of Indians died at contact by diseases” is something taken as a fact, when there is not even a clear figure of the population of the Americas at contact. If the population was 15 millions the impact would have been a lot different than if it was 200 millions.
Likewise, science hasn’t provided any direct observation of the age of the Earth. The same logic you apply here can be applied to arguments for Creationism. But there is a preponderance of types of evidence other than direct observation that can be used to estimate the age of the Earth to be more than a few thousand years old.
So, what’s the difference between population estimates of the Americas 500 years ago and the above case? Much of science can be crudely simplified as “estimations based on guessing,” but that doesn’t make it any less valid or useful.
I’d also like to see your reasoning against similar population estimates of Europe. There really aren’t accurate census figures for much of the known world. The same techniques used to estimate the native populations of the Americas are used to estimate populations in other historical eras and locations without much controversy. There’s certainly some room for error, but it’s not like anybody is claiming to know the population even to the nearest million.
That doesn’t help you. If you start with 10 million bodies and at the end count only 500,000 as Indians, because the other 9,500,000 are mestizos or Spanish or some other classification, you still have 10 million live bodies.
And therefore the archaeological evidence must be sufficient to show that 10 million live bodies were present - housed, fed, buried - for that continuous span of time. That does not happen.
You’re wrong about the science being nothing but guesses. Modern population science is based on archaeological evidence that also looks at written records where possible but doesn’t depend on them. It’s not exact, as they will readily admit, but the infrastructure needed to support and sustain one population is entirely different from that which will support and sustain a population ten times larger. And that’s different from a population ten times larger still.
Your argument, from what little clarity I make of it, is that modern day population specialists do nothing but read old Spanish texts. That’s a total misconception. They apply techniques for estimating populations in cities, villages, regions, and continents, and do so consistently across the globe and across time so that all past populations can be properly compared.
The book I mentioned earlier, A concise history of world population Escrito por Massimo Livi Bacci is considered “the standard history of world population.” Reading about demographic techniques may help with some of your confusion. I know your English is very good, but if you would prefer reading a more technical text in Spanish, I also find his Introducción a la demografía.
Great Antibob has gotten to my point first. Accurate census figures are just not available for most of the world until the industrial revolution, including Europe. The best Medieval census we have is the Domesday book from the 12th Century. By your reasoning, we don’t even know how many people were in England in 1340, let alone the whole continent.
Then it seems “population science” is as reliable as astrology :rolleyes:
But a “science” that have figures between 8 millions to 200 millions is not science. It is pseudoscience, I am afraid.
Versus a ‘science’ that twenty years ago estimated the age of the universe between 10 billion and 20 billion years old?
And serious population figures for the Americas don’t have such a range. The analogous situation to the age of the universe is claiming Creationists have valid figures, putting the range of estimates at 6000 years to 14 billion years old. That’s just silly.
What it is your estimation?
Nobody knows for certain or has an exact number, but we have a general idea of what is correct. I don’t think you dispute this notion. Surely if someone claimed there was 1 billion people or 1 person living in the New World when Columbus arrived, you would scoff and not give him the time of day. You are right though, that arriving at a number that you can have great confidence in is virtually impossible. Hence the range of estimates from a few million to 50 million. However, even though we don’t have confidence in a single number, we do have confidence in that range.
The range is too wide, so when some people claim “90%” of the population of the Americas died at contact, we must be certain that’s wrong.
Okay. Let’s put some perspective on this, so let’s take something from the 20th Century. We can all agree that there’s plenty of written evidence, and tons of documents in the modern era. So quick… how many people died in World War 2?
Most historians will give a number in the 60s or 70 millions. But the simple fact of the matter is we don’t really know. Even in the modern age records are just not accurate enough to give anything than a range: which means you’ll hear anything from 40 million to 80 million. That’s a huge margin of era when we already know many of the facts.
Going back 500 years and trying to come up with 100% accurate number just isn’t going to happen. The best that can be given is a range estimate. And given how large the margin of era is for 8 years in the 20th Century, of course it’s going to be even higher for a century in pre-modern times.
The problem is, with 15 millions for the whole hemisphere it is enough to explain what was observed at contact.
This idea of putting ranges from 40 to 200 million people is just a fashion driven by politics. In short, only pseudoscience.