01-05-2009, 02:03 PM
Oh yes, Marcos, there will always be your 'black spot', because we can never be sure that we have all the evidence. It's rather like studying fossils and looking for that elusive 'missing link'. Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Where there is an error is in assuming that the typology is somehow set in stone, that we know everything there is to know about a given artefact. Any such typology is only a guide and we must always recognise that it can be altered once new evidence comes in. In a way it's the same as saying that a scientific theory is 'only' a theory and imagining that it cannot be altered. Newston's Law of Gravity was superceded by the Einstein view of gravity because new information came to hand.
Hey - there's nothing wrong with your English if I can understand it! It's certainly way better than my Italian!
lol:
Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
Where there is an error is in assuming that the typology is somehow set in stone, that we know everything there is to know about a given artefact. Any such typology is only a guide and we must always recognise that it can be altered once new evidence comes in. In a way it's the same as saying that a scientific theory is 'only' a theory and imagining that it cannot be altered. Newston's Law of Gravity was superceded by the Einstein view of gravity because new information came to hand.
Hey - there's nothing wrong with your English if I can understand it! It's certainly way better than my Italian!
lol: Caratacus
(Mike Thomas)
visne scire quod credam? credo orbes volantes exstare.
