Skeptical about what i read

Anytime I hear a claim by science I wonder why everyone takes it at face value as a fact just because they say it is. For example "humans have had small canine teeth for 4.5 million years and the teeth were not for eating meat they were for fighting over mates". Most people would take that as a fact but I look at it and I wonder their methodology. Obviously there was no cameras back then. There was no written language. So there is obviously gonna be some assumptions here by scientists in this claim. This is something I just read on internet that some scientist said. Im not calling him stupid but I think theres a good possibility thats all horse shit and we have canines because our ancestors were hunter gatherers and ate mostly meat. But maybe I'm too much of a "conspiracy theorist" and should trust everything I read from authority no matter how unrealistic it sounds. After all this person went to university for a long time.

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 7 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • You can and should question authority, in general. The claim that we had fangs to fight for a mate rather than because we're omnivorous is dubious at best - I concur, that needs a lot more evidence than a bald assertion. So long as you remain able to process new data and change your opinions based on solid evidence - you're better off than 90% of the pack out there.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."


    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • if ya wanna be smart, say that you believe science. you dont have to understand it just say you believe it and you're a certified genius automatically

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You ask a good question. The great thing about Science is that you can actually did up the information that led to that conclusion. It just takes a little work (and the internet makes virtually all of it available).

    YOu can also find the alternate theories that are out there for the data that we know and often why they were rejected (or the current debate between competing theories). As for teeth size: in the case of teeth we have an assortment of skulls from different ages. It's been a few decades since I looked at that data; but, my memory is that there were distinctive changes in human's and pre-human teeth. The above theory sounds like it might be right (without looking at the data again).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • This reminds me of people using proto-languages in etymologies.

    If you are unaware, a proto-language is an attempt at recreating a general approximation of the sound and grammar of a language based on the languages that evolved from it. For example, English "comes from" proto-Germanic.

    But proto-Germanic is not a real language; there is no proto-Germanic. There was a proto-Germanic, but it does not exist anymore.

    So, if you ever look up an etymology and see something like:

    "from Proto-Germanic *frijōjands "lover, friend" (source also of Old Norse frændi, Old Danish frynt, Old Frisian friund, Dutch vriend, Middle High German friunt, German Freund, Gothic frijonds "friend")

    That is absolute nonsense, because not a single one of those words were derived from that word. In fact, the exact opposite is true: that word was derived from all of those words. And yet, it is posited that these words were derived from that word, as though it were some sort of scientific fact.

    Comment Hidden ( show )