This statement is false. If this is what you believe then you have no understanding of scientific method. There are no “leaps of faith” involved in scientific method.
Sure there are. They’re called hypotheses. And they are especially prevalent in the field of archaeology, where positive proof of a hypothesis is often not available.
Hypotheses are not leaps of faith, are not assumed or believed to be true but are merely taken as speculative models and they are certainly not “built upon” without confirmation.
Scientific method does not build on opinions, unconfirmed hypotheses, “faith” or fiat. That’s religion.
It seems like there are several different points buried here.
Confirmation bias does occur in science as it does elsewhere. How much does it occur and how disciplined is the scientific community to be on guard against it? Probably more than it should and less they they should be, respectively. But that has little to do with discussion regarding Creationism and ID.
Another general theme- that “house of cards” metaphor. Of course your use of metaphor implies that the structure is in actuality fragile but is falsely assumed to be bedrock. In reality the “next layer” is rarely built upon a fragile base. Each level is jumped on over and over again, hit from every side, even as a level above it is being built. And there have been many cases where even structures that were felt to solid have had a great mind come along and shake the whole structure from the foundation up.
Analyzing the possible intent of ancient peoples’ artifacts is difficult to do scientifically. Not impossible but difficult. We must infer based on limited information and it is difficult for an anthropologist to make a falsifiable prediction. The question of Neantertal art is one of those bits that could shake up some thinking about cognitive evolution. The working hypothesis has been that our evolutionary line out-competed the Neandertals partly because our brains allowed for more flexible and creative thinking. The observation that art and music artifacts exploded with the spread of modern humans has been strong support for that POV. Art produced before then and by Neandertals would make one question that POV.
In short your case in point - the “flute” - is an example of a possible bit of evidence for shaking up a level. Seeing “art”, and other bits of symbolic representation, produced by Neandertals shakes up the predominant POV. Given that other sites have shown more clear examples of symbolic representation that seem clearly produced by Neandertals the scientific community must change its thinking and accept that Neandertals were capable of producing these objects. That does not settle the question yet of whether they were creative or just copying their new neighbors. Where these examples of symbolic representation fit in our understanding of cognitive evolution, and in the issue of confirmation bias, is best illustrated by the conclusion of the linked article:
It would be nice if that were always true. But there is such a thing as orthodoxy in science, and even unconfirmed hypotheses can become entrenched. Look at how much resistance archaeologists investigating pre-Clovis sites in the Americas have met.
I think you are trying to turn this into a debate on religion vs. science, and I’m not sure that’s what the OP was getting at.
As noted in the Wikipedia article, the “plain” at Cahokia was man-made. Cahokia is not in the Mississippi flood plain. Your own referefence says that Albany was built on a ridge, not on the flood plain, itself. Your site that identifies the Albany location also mentions the Ogden-Fettie Mound Group which is on (as noted in its own description) “upland forest and prairie.” Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is over 100 feet higher than the nearest (rather small) stream in the midst of hilly country. The mounds near where I grew up in Southeast Michigan tended to be on hillsides and several mounds near where I now live sit atop glacial moraines.
::: shrug :::
Perhaps the southern mound builders preferred muddy feet. (Although, the very ancient mounds at Poverty Point, LA are described as “overlooking” the flood plain rather than being in it.)
I assume that that logic also applies to discovering grain storage on existing mounds? 
I suppose that since multiple cultures built mounds over many centuries, it is quite possible that some of those cultures initially invested in granaries rather than ceremony or housing. A claim that securing food from floods was a primary motivation, given the number built above flood plains, seems weak, but not impossible.
Then you don’t understand scientific method with regard to archaeology. There are certainly theories that are built upon unconfirmed hypotheses. The entire field is basically built on unconfirmed hypotheses. Its the past, unless you have a time machine there’s no way to confirm it.
So you if you have a hypotheses predicting the behavior of an animal that is now extinct you would need to make some sort of leap of faith as to what you will base your theory on.
I’m not sure what you think I’m saying but I’m not using the term faith in a religious sense. Middle range theory uses leaps of faith in interpreting the data to build theory.
No there aren’t. There are only hypothetical models. They don’t rise to the level of scientific theory.
You’re going to have to provide several concrete examples of this claim. There are many cases where laymen, failing to understand what has actually been proposed and tested, have leaped to the conclusion that it is all unsupported. This does not mean that there is no such support. Your claim is far too overbroad to sustain itself.
Now, as DSeid and others have acknowledged, there are typical human impediments to thorough examinations and rigorous testing, but as stated, your claim is, itself, a “theory” founded on “unconfirmed hypotheses.”
DSeid excellent post. That’s more along the lines of what I’m interested in discussing. Yes spoke it does seem to be a knee jerk reaction to say its about religion.
My interest is really about interpreting the data and how we are often blind to our own bias. We assume that we’ve got certain variables that we can “count on” but that may or may not be true when discussing the mental wherewithal to a Neanderthal.
DSeid, what’s interesting to me is the things you were discussing about how these ancestors may have been imitating their neighbors. I didn’t mean to use the house of cards by the way to suggest fragile ideas, though I can see why you thought that, so lets suggest legos because actually something as flimsy as a house of cards would not create a lot of annoyance at having to deconstruct.
A lego system built up of theories building into a huge model would however be extremely frustrating to have to take back apart. I do believe that’s what spoke is referring to in using the term orthodoxy in science.
I would imagine that if someone had spent years building on a theory such as the one that Neanderthals didn’t have art, that someone coming along and proving that they did would really be annoying. So perhaps they’d be dismissed and not even listened to.
By the way I see I’ve used theories in the layman term and not the scientific term so I’m sorry about that. Please accept that I’m not suggesting that theories and hypotheses are the same thing. I just don’t have an edit feature yet.
Yes it is. It’s on the American Bottom flood plain:
It was built on a ridge on the floodplain. Sounds to me like the builders wisely took advantage of some preexisting high ground to save themselves some labor.
The mounds are in the region of the flood plain, but actually rise above it. There is speculation that the flood of 1843 may have reached the grounds of the mound complex, but there is no direct evidence that the land actually flooded.
Which, with my remark on Cahokia is exactly consistent with my original statement that “Most of the mounds are above high-water flood stages, making them redundant as shelters.”
Clearly, the Sny Magill Unit of Effigy Mounds flood regularly and it may be possible that the Etowah mounds get flooded, but the other mounds, themselves, are actually built on land that is above the level of flooding.
Here is a little primer on science for red_awning and others who claim that it is as faith-based as religion(which is certainly a strange position for an atheist to take in the first place.)
Cite? I have been to the mounds, and there’s nothing between them and the river but a lot of flat ground. The cites I’ve provided say quite specifically that they are on the flood plain (not “in the region of the flood plain”).
And I again point out that we live in an era when dams control floods. There are multiple dams along Mississippi tributaries.
Areas which might not often be flooded today would have been flooded regularly in an earlier age.
Flat rising ground. The base of the mounds are at an elevation of 420 feet–which was the speculated elevation for the high water mark in 1843–the highest flood noted.
There does not have to be some sort of cliff to keep the water away; the land simply has to be too high for a flood to reach. There is no evidence that a flood has reached Cahokia. If you want to insist that they are “in the floodplains” go ahead. (I have already acknowledged that this might have some basis for many of the Southern mounds.) Your claim was that they were mostly built to provide places to keep water away from food and in Cahokia, Albany, Ogden-Fettie, the mounds of Southeast Michigan, the mounds of Northeast and Southwest Ohio, and other places, that does not appear to be a true statement.
Looks like the Poverty Point site was flooded in 1927. Twice.
Actually, it’s a pretty reasonable reaction based on your OP. I suggest rereading it. I’ve added some emphasis to help.
The base is at the highest point in a low-lying area. You can sort of see that here. The areas all around it are lower. Again, the locals took advantage of a preexisting rise to save themselves some labor.
red awning … well, you may just want to avoid using “the f-word” when discussing the scientific method. It’s like a red flag to a bull for many around here.
Your point is not without merit. While some scientists, being human after all, sometimes forget it, science is not ever about knowing what actually is. It is about developing and testing models that we believe more and more closely approximate what is with asymtopically decreasing levels of doubt. True enough that sometimes that level of doubt becomes so small as to effectively be treated as zero, but it never really is. And true enough, if someone is going claim that several levels of Legos need to be deconstructed and rebuilt, then they will have some convincing to do. A single data point won’t be enough. Three or four may not be enough. Some individuals will cling to their previous models even after overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But if a body of evidence is collected that shows that the current standard model is just wrong, then the bulk of the community will eventually recognize that fact.
Back to the specific case. Right now it seems that Neandertals were producing objects with symbolic representation (art) alongside of modern humans doing the same (the “flute” is not the best example of the evidence for that, as that link explained). If dating shows that they were doing that well before exposure to modern humans then the hypothesis that modern human possessed a unique brain wiring for symbolic representation is falsified. Continued failure to find such examples of clear symbolic representation clearly produced by Neandertals before the appearance of modern humans in the area leaves open (but does not prove) the hypothesis that modern human brain wiring is uniquely suited for such thought processes and that Neandertals were just superficially mimicking the trappings of these new and more successful neighbors without real understanding of symbolic thought. The more sites explored without finding such evidence the less doubt there is about such a hypothesis.
The last quote I supplied is most telling of in the self-awareness of the scientist who holds the traditional, it’s-brain-wiring, POV. He acknowledges what he wants to believe and his desire to reject data that contradicts it. But he is open to the fact that he may need to revise his understanding given a body of new evidence if it pans out, if his preferred hypothesis is falsified.