Facebook posts about prehistoric archeology

Lately, I've heard of several people who are fascinated by some Facebook posts related to what might have happened on Earth before recorded history.

Our knowledge of prehistory is intrinsically indirect, because we don't have contemporaneous accounts. We can only *infer* what happened using a careful analysis of the (often circumstantial) evidence we do have. This kind of analysis sometimes requires deep expertise to *do* but also to understand. (For example, I recently read a discussion of the supposed lengths of the reigns of kings in Sumaria that argued that the numbers were actually intended as a lesson in quadratic equations rather than an attempt to offer a realistic chronology. I had trouble following the details.)

The stuff posted on Facebook about what "really" happened before recorded history often only mentions the "evidence" that supports a particular viewpoint. It also often ignores any scholarly analysis that might contradict the intended inference. (For example, a piece about the Easter Island statues makes it seem like it's *new* that we've learned through excavation that the "heads" actually have bodies that go many meters under the ground. It's *not* new. Plus, there are very natural explanations of how the statues were buried over time.)

An analogy I want to make is to discussions about climate change. Many scientists have concluded from the evidence (*not* actual thermometers from 1000s of years ago!) that recent warming is unprecedented in the past 100,000 years. This case is pretty solid; few reputable scientists say these data and conclusions aren't pretty reliable. (Not perfect, but very good.) And yet many climate-change skeptics argue that we don't really *know* much about temperatures on earth before about 1800.

This is very much like those Facebook posts that say we don't *know* that the Earth *wasn't* visited by gods or extraterrestrials who seeded human civilization. 

In a very limited way, the posts are right that we don't *know*. We weren't there, and neither was anyone who wrote anything down. (The cave paintings are also subject to many different interpretations.)

But direct personal experience isn't the only way to *know* anything. In trials, for example, where evidence is often circumstantial, jurors are instructed to *use their common sense* in drawing reasonable inferences.

Similarly, I think we have to use our common sense in responding to Facebook posts about prehistoric archeology. Do we have *any* actual evidence that gods or extraterrestrials have ever visited the Earth? Do we notice gods or extraterrestrials interfering in today's world? Do we wonder whether it was possible to get to the moon or build the Chunnel without divine intervention?

But wouldn't it be *totally cool* if we discovered that aliens taught early humans mathematics or philosophy or how to move enormous stones? Sure! But the possibility of something that might be *totally cool* isn't reason to think it might be true.

Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation for an observation is most likely to be true. What is the *simplest explanation* of those supposedly lengthy reigns of kings chronicled in ancient Sumerian tablets? Isn't it more likely that the numbers were made up as part of propaganda by people working for other rulers thousands of years later to justify their current boss's rule? Or that the tablets were intended to provide a lesson in quadratic equations in a society worried about losing that almost sacred knowledge?

You decide. ☺️

Kamala Harris for President

I lost some long-time friends in 2016 because I called them out on what I saw as gross distortions of the choices in that election. I regret losing the friends, but I don't regret speaking out.

Lemme push back a bit on some of the comments Ive seen from Trump supporters on the 2024 election. (I'm guessing I don't have any friends left who will unfriend me for *these* comments.)

1. Kamala Harris is a smart woman. She has an undergraduate degree from one of the best universities in the U.S. and a law degree from a top-rated law school. She worked as a prosecutor for most of her life, getting elected both in San Francisco and in California. She was a senator for four years and has served as vice-president for four years. She's highly qualified to be president. 

2. The idea that she's personally responsible for everything that's wrong with America today is just crazy. The Vice President has about as much authority as a "warm bucket of spit," especially when the Congress is split between two parties. Kamala did what she could, as a loyal second to Biden, and she doesn't disown his record, but she is her own person with her own ideas, who deserves a chance to lead the country. (Serving as Vice President has been a great addition to her life-long learning, by the way.)

3. The idea that she's "incompetent" is about as clueless/brainless as one can get in 2024 America. Someone who is saying that clearly gets their news from Fox/Newsmax/OAN, and has really no basis for that opinion but...um... their American right to a foolish, untethered opinion. These people need to get out more.

4. Kamala is progressive; she believes in opportunity for ALL (immigrants, women, the disabled, LGBTQ+, Palestinians). You could call her a "liberal," but you have to remember that she believes in the rule of law and the greatness of the American story. She's no "communist" or even "socialist." (These labels are tired and should be REtired forever from political discourse.) If you want to call her something, call her a "Democrat."

5. Trump has shown us what he'll do with a second term. Should we hold him responsible for the pandemic, economic collapse, and crime wave of his years as President? Should we hold him accountable for the crimes he's been charged with and even convicted of? Should we expect him to stop name-calling and red-baiting and dog-whistling and start seriously discussing the actual job before us? Or does he get a pass for all these things because he forefronts white grievance and Christian Nationalism (not to mention the effort to turn back a woman's right to choose)?

6. Despite the MAGA claim that Kamala will destroy America if she's elected, we have to look back on the actual history of the U.S. and the actual effects of presidential actions and beliefs (even from liberal presidents) on that history. The president's powers are quite limited (Thank Goodness!), but who we choose does represent our aspirations for the future and who we choose can help shape the evolution of those aspirations.

7. There's NO doubt in my mind that Trump will win 44-47% of the popular vote in 2024. This is baked in. (The fact that America is so divided today is a lamentable thing, but that's a topic for another day.) If he's extremely lucky, he'll win the Electoral College. This election will be decided by the "UNdecideds." It's now a 74 day sprint to convince the undecideds to go with hope, optimism, and joy rather than fear, blather, and "American Carnage."

May the best candidate win. 🙏 

Groupthink on the Political Right; Or, What Brings All These Wackos to SouthWest Florida?

In 2019, after 30 years living in Chicago, where the Democrats have an iron grip on the electorate, I moved to SouthWest Florida, where MAGA runs wild and the Democrats can't even field a real Democrat to run against Ron DeSantis for governor (cf. Charlie Crist). 

This shift in my immediate political environment has been jarring, honestly, and I'm actually surprised I'm still here despite strong instincts to head back North. (That's another story for another time.)

But moving here has had the unintended (and initially unwelcome) effect of exposing me to the overwhelmingly White, and overwhelmingly Male, base of the GOP, and this exposure has allowed me to get a much better sense of what motivates these people to villify Democrats and to actually venerate a convicted cretin like Donald Trump.

One of the things I do pretty often here in Sarasota is I have become a regular at a couple downtown bars' Happy Hours. Fortunately, I can walk downtown, where there's a quite respectable group of restaurants and bars--much better than you'd expect from a small city like Sarasota, which has not only an interesting, financially successful citizenry (mostly from away, as they say in Maine), but also a lot of passers-through.

So I get to meet these financially successful citizens and their passing-through ilk regularly. And even though almost every bartender has banned political conversations at their bars, you can get a pretty good sense of someone's beliefs and values from a more general chat about life, work, and aspirations in general. 

And what I've learned is quite interesting, especially in light of the current political environment in the US and in Florida. 

Almost without exception, the White Males I chat with in Sarasota *hate* Democrats, *despise* the Democratically-led cities and states of the North, and *love* DeSantis and this income-tax-free "paradise." These strong beliefs motivate many of these men to move here from wherever they are from, bringing with them their hard-earned wealth and their extremely dystopian ideas about the "Hell Holes" up North like Chicago.

When I tell them I miss Chicago, I get the most interesting and vehement reactions, such as the nearly universal view that Chicago is (still!) the murder capital of the world and that the Democratic Machine is absolutely evil and completely un-democratic.

Facts be damned in these conversations: the beliefs I encounter are totally baked in, even--especially!-among people who actually lived at one time in Chicago or in similar cities North and West of the Mason-Dixon line. These beliefs provide almost certain proof that most of these men are consumers/products of FoxNews and are not-so-secret believers in tired old racial and gender stereotypes, not to mention Trump's "American Carnage" storyline.

What I hear from these men about Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Gavin Newsom, Chuck Schumer, and many others, is a true caricature: a classic projection of every fear and every disgust that they were raised on, or acquired sometime during their mostly very financially-successful lives.

A sample: Joe Biden is the worst form of "bought-and-paid-for politician" in the history of the world. Kamala Harris got where she is by sleeping with every powerful man she could, and can't utter a coherent thought. Immigrants are mostly criminals and terrorists, or are lazy shifters in search of government handouts. People like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are communists or fascists (or both?) who hate America and want to create a nanny state that eliminates free enterprise and independent thought. Northern governors like J.B. Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer want legalized marijuana so their states' populations become addicted and easily manipulated. Academics are all elitist Marxists who think their book learning trumps common sense and everyday experience. (Okay, maybe that last one has some truth to it.)

While many of the men I talk to are truly experts in their respective occupations and seem to truly love their families, the analytical or empathetic approach they take to their work or personal lives seems to go out the window once the conversation edges toward the political. 

What's going on?

I really don't know the answer. I'm baffled by all of this. Is it the fluorine in the water? Is it COVID vaccines? Is it the result of Bill Gates' devious design of Microsoft Windows? Is it the work of the Trilateral Commission or the attendees at Davos? Is it creeping federal control of schooling in the U.S.?

Seriously, what explains the apparent takeover of (a large sector of) the political world by right-wing groupthink?

I welcome your thoughts.