Age of ancient humans reassessed ...

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh I'm not denying that we do, in fact, "know" lots of things. I just find that these conversations tend to inevitably turn into foofy existential debates about the possibility of "knowing" anything. Such debates certainly have merit, but I don't find them particularly stimulating. I just allow people to think of all of science as plastic in these situations, since it's easier than trying to delineate the amount of confidence we have in various bits of information. There are certain things that we know 99%, and there are other things that we are willing to temporarily accept as a foundation for further work, as doing so is necessary for progress. If these foundational bits are adjusted, then the work in which they are employed will also be adjusted. I gave several examples of each earlier in this thread.

I keep getting the feeling you are talking to someone other than me, like I walked into a lecture you are giving to a class of which I am not a member. Like I said, working assumption is OK for me.

Oh well. NIce to have another hard science type around, as there are already too many stinkin' lawyers.