Jones: Prehistoric wooden tools found in South America have been dated to 13,000 years ago. ████████ ██████████ █████████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ████████
██████ ████ ████████ ██ █████████████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ████ █ ███ ██████
Jones concludes that 13,000-year-old wooden tools found in South America cannot be attributed to peoples whose ancestors first crossed from northern Europe into Alaska. Why not? Because to get as far as South America, those peoples would have to migrate south well before 13,000 years ago. And no one has found wooden tools older than 13,000 years along the way from Alaska to South America. Jones assumes that if these wooden tools were correctly attributed, even older wooden tools would have been found on the way from Alaska.
In response, Smith concludes that Jones' evidence is inconclusive. Smith isn't saying Jones is necessarily wrong, just that Jones' evidence doesn't truly support Jones' conclusion. And why not? Because wooden tools can be preserved in peat bogs, but in other soils usually decompose pretty fast. The tools in question were found in peat bogs, but peat bogs are rare in the Americas. Smith is showing that even if older wooden tools had existed further north, they probably wouldn't have survived.
So where do Jones and Smith disagree? Well, we can be clear on where they don't disagree: they both accept (or at least don't dispute) the factual evidence about ancient wooden tools, the peoples who migrated from Alaska to South America, and the rarity of peat bogs. Their only disagreement is on the interpretation of the evidence. Jones interprets the absence of older tools to mean that scientists' attribution is wrong; Smith thinks the evidence is inconclusive, and the scientists could be right.
The point at issue between █████ ███ █████ ██
whether all prehistoric █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████
Were all prehistoric tools of 13,000 years or older made of wood?
Jones: ❓Smith: ❓
Neither Jones nor Smith gives an opinion on the materials used for all tools of this age. They're just arguing about specific prehistoric tools that happened to be made of wood.
whether the scientists’ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████████
Could the scientists' attribution of the tools be correct?
Jones: ❌Smith: ✅
Jones thinks
whether the dating ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████
Could the scientists have correctly dated the wooden tools?
Jones: ✅Smith: ✅
Jones
how long ago ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ██
How long ago did certain peoples first cross into the Americas from Siberia to Alaska?
Jones: ❓Smith: ❓
Neither Jones nor Smith discusses when certain peoples first crossed into the Americas, although both seem to accept that
whether Smith’s evidence ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ████ █████ █████████
Does Smith's evidence show that the tools were dated correctly?
Jones: ❓Smith: ❓
Jones
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic