47,000 years ago, for 7000 years, humans were having sex with neandarthals

[MechEng]

3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Get the Yugas right, at least. Rama lived in Treta Yuga , was Ajaanubahu (15 feet tall). 47,000 years ago is alrady Kali Yuga where people are about the same height as you and me. Hinduiyat nahi hota hain, Hindutva hota hain. 

 

According to Wikipedia, the timelines are much larger.

[Real McCoy]

22 hours ago, MechEng said:

 

According to Wikipedia, the timelines are much larger.

 

According to Wikipedia, Pax Brittanica was a time of peace.

[coffee_rules]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:13 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

There is no such thing as perfect science. There are no dogmas or absolutes. I would even go so far as to say that even Newton's "laws" are not infallible. After all, quantum physics was developed to explain phenomena at the subatomic level that don't "obey" Newton's principles.

 

But, it cannot be a bunch of internet warriors who would bring it down. After years or decades of observations, hypotheses, painstaking and rigorous experiments using well-controlled methods, analysis of falfsifiable data, and conclusions that are consistent with a new paradigm, new laws could be proposed.

 

Gene-data and genealogy are even more dynamic, and no one claims them to be as tight as gravity or thermodynamics. The reason, of course is that (a) the fossil record is being continuously updated by new excavations, (b) fossil dating methods are being upgraded. and (c) gene-analysis data are being upgraded. Knowledge is continuously being built, challenged and upgraded continuously.

 

The scientists simply report their findings in scientific journals. If you read the original research articles, you will see a discussion of the most likely interpretation of their findings and also alternative explanations. There will also be a section describing limitations of their work. Peer-review by experts would mainly be to ensure that appropriate experimental methods were used and a comprehensive analysis was done in the context of current literature.

 

Of course, things get twisted when these scientific findings are then distilled down and over-simplified by university marketing staff, journalists and internet warriors. So, while the science can stand on its own, the narratives are set outside the lab by non-scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You kind of proved my point that the narratives are set by mediocre people in the society.  
 

I have my doubts on peer-reviewed material esp in the field of population genetics or archeo-genetics. Also, on a lot of medical studies that appear in medical journals are themselves sponsored by what we call Big Pharma or Industries that get benefitted by that study with an agenda. 

 

David Reich ‘s research on population genetics was based on samples across all over the globe , the ad mixture and analysis proved some kind of a change in Indians post 1900 bc. It could have due to population mixture due to trade or people in search of better living conditions. That’s a scientific hypothesis based on the available evidence. No problem with that. Since , linguists had already purported and believed in a AIT or AMT, everybody in humanities started jumping up and down as if AIT was proven. Journalists like Tony Joseph wrote a book on how Steppe pastorals rode on horses and demolished all culture along and established Vedic civilization without any linguistic or archeological proof. Still a lot of research papers in genetics refute David Reich’s claims, but the damage is done to the narrative is set by the BBC, Scroll and Wire articles about how Indians came about. Hence, the narrative agenda activists  are of no merit and don’t think like science people. My main grouse. 

[MechEng]

On 6/10/2024 at 5:43 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

There is no such thing as perfect science. There are no dogmas or absolutes. I would even go so far as to say that even Newton's "laws" are not infallible. After all, quantum physics was developed to explain phenomena at the subatomic level that don't "obey" Newton's principles.

 

But, it cannot be a bunch of internet warriors who would bring it down. After years or decades of observations, hypotheses, painstaking and rigorous experiments using well-controlled methods, analysis of falfsifiable data, and conclusions that are consistent with a new paradigm, new laws could be proposed.

 

Gene-data and genealogy are even more dynamic, and no one claims them to be as tight as gravity or thermodynamics. The reason, of course is that (a) the fossil record is being continuously updated by new excavations, (b) fossil dating methods are being upgraded. and (c) gene-analysis data are being upgraded. Knowledge is continuously being built, challenged and upgraded continuously.

 

The scientists simply report their findings in scientific journals. If you read the original research articles, you will see a discussion of the most likely interpretation of their findings and also alternative explanations. There will also be a section describing limitations of their work. Peer-review by experts would mainly be to ensure that appropriate experimental methods were used and a comprehensive analysis was done in the context of current literature.

 

Of course, things get twisted when these scientific findings are then distilled down and over-simplified by university marketing staff, journalists and internet warriors. So, while the science can stand on its own, the narratives are set outside the lab by non-scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of academical literature is distilled down to fit a narrative.

 

How many of you have heard of giant gold digging ants residing in Indian deserts and of griffins living in mountains of Himalayas? Many Greek authors have written in detail about these creatures in their works. Yet you will never come across these in mainstream literature.

[MechEng]

N/A

Edited June 13, 2024 by MechEng

[MechEng]

N/A

Edited June 13, 2024 by MechEng

[rish]

Meh I knew that after seeing anil kapoors back

[BacktoCricaddict]

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Since , linguists had already purported and believed in a AIT or AMT,

This, right here, is the problem. I am guessing that, 30 yrs from now, if there is evidence that refutes OIT, there will be an uprising of OIT believers. To me, genealogy is just fun. It is of academic interest - just to fulfill scientific curiosity. It should not be a basis to set narratives of cultural superiority.

 

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Also, on a lot of medical studies that appear in medical journals are themselves sponsored by what we call Big Pharma

This is why we must not attach much importance to any single study - especially with small sample sizes. Even "Big Natural" works the same way - someone publishes a single, small study to test the effect of _______________________ (insert natural product name here) on its ability to treat ___________________________ (insert disease here).

 

It is not that those studies are not valuable. They are pieces of the puzzle and must be published. But, as you said, some company will swoop in and say "research has shown that this product helps with this disease." And the media will run with it. Stores will stock it. Google reviews will rave about it. And TikTok influencers will promote it. Billions will be made.

 

But until enough evidence has accumulated from multiple studies and double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trials are conducted with large sample sizes (unless it is a super-rare disease) and appropriate statistics, it should not be sold as a treatment for anything.

 

Having said all that, just because a profit-making entity (Big Pharma/Big Natural) sponsored a study, it does not immediately invalidate it. Research costs money - either the govt or industry has to sponsor it. But, after a study is completed, it must be repeated, scrutinized and validated on a case-by-case basis before the hype-train leaves the station. No matter who sponsored it - big pharma, small pharma, big natural, herbal doctor, homeopathy practitioner - the standard should be the same.

 

My take on all this is - No DB-RCT, No medicine.

Edited June 13, 2024 by BacktoCricaddict

[Real McCoy]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

My take on all this is - No DB-RCT, No medicine.

 

How many RCTs were conducted during the covihoax vaccine trials? Describe the process of conducting such trials with all information known to the human guinea pigs. How would the "experts" on CNN like Fauci tell everyone that the vaccines are "safe and effective"?

[Lord]

7000 years damn !!!

 

Even I can't last that long

[Muloghonto]

On 6/13/2024 at 4:41 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

This, right here, is the problem. I am guessing that, 30 yrs from now, if there is evidence that refutes OIT, there will be an uprising of OIT believers. To me, genealogy is just fun. It is of academic interest - just to fulfill scientific curiosity. It should not be a basis to set narratives of cultural superiority.

 

This is why we must not attach much importance to any single study - especially with small sample sizes. Even "Big Natural" works the same way - someone publishes a single, small study to test the effect of _______________________ (insert natural product name here) on its ability to treat ___________________________ (insert disease here).

 

It is not that those studies are not valuable. They are pieces of the puzzle and must be published. But, as you said, some company will swoop in and say "research has shown that this product helps with this disease." And the media will run with it. Stores will stock it. Google reviews will rave about it. And TikTok influencers will promote it. Billions will be made.

 

But until enough evidence has accumulated from multiple studies and double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trials are conducted with large sample sizes (unless it is a super-rare disease) and appropriate statistics, it should not be sold as a treatment for anything.

 

Having said all that, just because a profit-making entity (Big Pharma/Big Natural) sponsored a study, it does not immediately invalidate it. Research costs money - either the govt or industry has to sponsor it. But, after a study is completed, it must be repeated, scrutinized and validated on a case-by-case basis before the hype-train leaves the station. No matter who sponsored it - big pharma, small pharma, big natural, herbal doctor, homeopathy practitioner - the standard should be the same.

 

My take on all this is - No DB-RCT, No medicine.

 

 

They already are. Linguistic community is up in arms against the most recent & most comprehensive peer reviewed paper ever in field of Indo-European linguistics, published by Max Plank institute's scholars ( Heggarty et al) that shows Indo-Europeans originate in Anatolia, not the steppes, that Indo-Iranians came to India via the southern route ( meaning from eastern Turkey to India via Iran and Afghanistan), where Indo-Aryan and Iranian split, with Indus Valley civilisation being Indo-European. The paper proposes that the steppes were an 'intermediate homeland' for the European branch of the indo-europeans, with some minor 'backfilling'. 

This dovetails neatly into the Rig vedic accounts of the Dasa Raja yuddha and the split of Iranians from Aryans, with Iranians migrating back to the Iranian plateau. 

You should see the uproar- some linguists have rejected the data as 'not convincing', this, despite this being *THE* most comprehensive dataset ever, while others are accusing Max Plank institute to've caved to hinduvta agenda.