Thanks God 
Why would you have any confidence in any of those figures?
I trust you. What I don’t trust is your college
The academic world is nuts, particularly these fantasious biologists. They would write science fiction like Crichton (who was a physician) and would make a lot more money, I guess. :dubious:
Now, a principle nobody should forget: SCIENCE IS BASED ON PROOFS!!
There aren’t proofs about the SIZE of the population at contact. Everything is simply speculation, and as such, any person has the right to be skeptical.
Yes, I get that. What I don’t get is why you believe your experts and not the others? What makes their arguments so much more compelling?
Utterly wrong. You clearly know nothing about science.
The one thing that science is *never *about is proof. Science relies entirely upon the concept of falsifiability. Once anything is proven then it ceases to be science.
Mathematics deals in proofs. Science *never *deals in proofs. Ever.
Because at least ONE of “my” experts is a schollar in Colonial Hispanic America, something that can’t be said of the others experts guessing. Historical records should be matched with biological fantasies.
Those kind of sciences are worthless. You are describing schollastic and teology, not science..
:rolleyes:
Thanks. I didn’t have to post it because you did.
I don’t think pinguin is any sort of scientist or any sort of critical thinker, and it looks as though he’s going to cherry pick the data he likes and disregard anything that doesn’t agree (because of the marihuana generation, or some other spurious charge). So, it may be fruitless to continue.
On the plus side, at least the bee in his bonnet is about pre-Columbian populations instead of Obama’s birth certificate or 9-11 or the moon landings. That’s a nice change. Maybe he needs a nice shorthand term, parallel to ‘birther’, like ‘popper’, or ‘pre-Columbo’.
Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology … these are worthless? Because none of them are based on proof.
Am I missing something, or are we still waiting?
Ah, well. It’s always tonight somewhere but it is also always not tonight somewhere.
I believe post 133 is what he was talking about.
The population ranges he’s touting, ~8 to ~15 million, are considered too low even by high-count critics. I can’t find my copy of 1491, but an unidentified low-counter admits something like 30 million is closer to being right. For reference, legit high-counters top out at 100 million.
This is a valid discussion being marred by invalid stubbornness.
You’re probably thinking of the infamous David Henige.
Las Casas wrote that in 50 years the Spanish had killed 12-15 million, a number he later revised upward to 40 million. He wrote, “that it looked as if God has placed all of or the greater part of the entire human race in these countries.”
If, as pinguin wants to insist, the Spanish did the killing and one-third of the population died, the starting point at minimum was 40 million. It must be much higher, since Las Casas couldn’t know about much of what is now the U.S. and Canada or of lower South America.
But we’ve long since given up on any logic. It’s become absolutely classic Conspiracy Theory reasoning. Science is Wrong, except for the scientists who agree with me! Numbers means Nothing, unless they’re the ones I use! All experts Don’t Know what they’re talking about, except the expert I’m quoting! It doesn’t matter that my argument contradicts itself, because my end point is the Only Answer.
Fascinating how consistent this pattern is across cultures.
I’m still confused by Oenguin’s goals here. He obviosuly has a giant chip on his shoulder about something, but I can’t figure out what/ His reasons for favoring a low-count figrue are vague but conspiratorial in nature, while he changes his story otherwise constantly.
His own figures suggest that the white man wouldn’t have had to pay any attention to the natives: they could have simply walked in, started colonizing, and the AmerIndians wouldn’t have been bothered until they vanished. Yet the historical facts strong suggest that it was a constant frontier of intermarriage, business, assimilation, and sometimes war. The history his own numbers demand can’t support that. And he himself claims that whites walked in and murdered everybody, and that was the primary source of death.
Oh, and depsite the odd bit of spelling and a huge run fo bad logic, your English is excellent, Pinguin.
Borah (one of the maximillists previously mentioned) was a professor of Latin American history at Berkeley.
Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Darwin, Kepler, Hooke, Pasteur, the Curies, Faraday, Maxwell, Gauss, <insert thousands more names>, … what do you have against their work?
By your quite bizarre definition of “proof” and “science”, they are all pseudo-scientific hacks. None of their work has been “proved” by your standards.
And you have yourself named Henige (a historian and bibliographer - not a scientist) as a scientist.
Perhaps your arguments would be taken more seriously if they involved a definition of “science” or of “proof” that agreed with centuries old, commonly held definitions of those terms.
Maximalists are idiots; by definition;). That shows how easy is to become a professor of Latin American studies at Berkeley :rolleyes:
The above paragraph also shows that starting from shaky basis you can prove anything, as the bacteria-fiction novels of the Americas usually do.
You can’t compare Einstein, Newton or Archimedes, superb mathematical minds, with mediocre scientists that base theirs studies on wild fantasy.
Science without proofs is schollastic. Something for academics, of course, but not a rational way to describe the world. “How many angels fit on the head of a pin” it is not a question of infinitesimal calculus or rational mechanics, at all.
Have I said anything like that in this thread?
Nope. I haven’t. I just said you can’t make a theory of “massive death by disease” in the Americas if you have no idea of how many people were at contact.
Particularly when the number of people in the Americas is the target of political movements and mediocre theorists.
My logic is excellent as well. The spelling is wrong: I know. Too bad. Yours language is really ackward for me.
Nope. I didn’t say they are worthless. “Paleo statistics”, or “number cruching”, is the field that has a problem.