Every week
scientists seem to change their mind regarding the cause of the
extinction of neanderthals. This week it was their big dreamy eyes,
the other day it was rabbits, a while back it was their rubbish
childhoods.
In truth, I'm sure most researchers aren't radically changing their minds so much so often, but adding nuances to complex theories. The problem is almost certainly down to hyperbolic science journalism.
In truth, I'm sure most researchers aren't radically changing their minds so much so often, but adding nuances to complex theories. The problem is almost certainly down to hyperbolic science journalism.
Silent killer. |
From what I
understand, there are still a few key competing theories regarding
neanderthal extinction: interbreeding, disease, genocide or some
general competitive advantage possessed by humans. It's this last factor that causes trouble. As soon as we begin to
speculate about the details of a plausible but vague competitive
advantage, we open the doors to any hypothesis that sounds
feasible. Superior communication? Diverse tools? More effective
hunting strategies? Surely any and all of these are possible, but how
would we come to any sort of sensible and testable comparison?
Giant eyes, killer bunnies; these guys had a hard time. |
This a problem that frequents evolutionary psychology. In evolutionary
psychology we look for evolutionary reasons for often highly specific
and complex psychological traits and behaviour. But in doing so we
run the danger of hysterical hypothesising- rapidly drawing
conclusions that are frequently unverifiable. That's not to say there
isn't an evolutionary explanation for those traits, but rather that
our conclusions need to be moderate and uncertain. Likewise, I
don't doubt the possibility of human competitive advantages over
neanderthals- as a lay person who am I to dispute this? I also don't
doubt the possibility and utility of comparing the plausibility of
different adaptations as an explanation for human survival to some
extent. However, I find the range of such assured headlines
suspicious. I'm sure most scientists in the field take a nuanced
approach that avoids such certainty.