Comment by randomtoast
3 months ago
The domestication of horses was not a single event, but a long, drawn-out process that took place over several thousand years. According to Occam's razor, it is very unlikely that it happened twice in history. I do not question the stated DNA method, but I do question the conclusion drawn here. There might be a link between the two domestications (if two or more have actually occurred) that hasn't been discovered yet.
A pet peeve of mine, but this is a misapplication of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not to be used to say "this explanation sounds complex, there must be a simpler explanation."
Rather, the point of Occam's razor is to say "here I have two competing explanations, and they both amount to the same thing, and we don't have any evidence of one over the other, so let's just pick the simpler one because it doesn't make a difference."
So, for example, if we had absolutely zero evidence as to the domestication of horses, and one person said "they were domesticated once" and another person said "they were domesticated twice", then it all amounts to the same thing (horses were domesticated) and we have no evidence either way, so we would use Occam's razor to favor the first explanation.
But in this case, it appears we do have evidence, so rather than relying on Occam's razor, we should just argue about the evidence instead.
From Wikipedia "This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"
Both hypotheses make the same prediction and have equal explanatory power. I think just one article where they say "may have been" in the title is not enough evidence to overrule occams principle in this case.
I don't believe that. How hard is it to capture baby horses, it would happen naturally hunting their parents. Horses bond decently with people and if captured and socialized heavily by the tribe from a young age I have no doubt first generation wild horses would be rideable and could be bred.
Yes, but the ability to bond decently with people may be a trait that was bred into them during the early domestication process.
Wild horses run in herds, I think they're naturally social. If anything, it takes less work now - ranchers can ride horses that get very limited human contact, but the I image first generation tamed horses must have required a lot of socialization.
4 replies →
> According to Occam's razor, it is very unlikely that it happened twice in history
Is it? Sure, if you start with "we have domesticated horses, how did we get here" then "one event happened" are less assumptions than "two events happened". But if you start the other way around with "humans lived in vicinity of a species that lends itself to domestication" then "they only domesticated it once" sounds like the wild speculation.
Even if you assume exchange between the two civilizations, spreading the idea that horses can be domesticated is much easier and lower friction than spreading actual domesticated horses. Especially with a mountain range involved and early generations of barely-domesticated horses.
I think think the statement "humans lived in vicinity of a species that lends itself to domestication" is wrong. Horses do not lend itself to domestication, as stated earlier this process took thousands of years. No one would say, oh it just took humans a couple of thousands years todo X, well that was quiet easy.
> as stated earlier this process took thousands of years.
Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.[1] Do you have any actual support for your clam that it took thousands of years?
___
[1]: Except for the Goebbelian definition of "true".
5 replies →