I think we should always take this kind of data-based analysis of complex issues with a pinch of salt. A discussion of the various cases would be much more informative than statistics derived from a flat database.The abstract suggests that a massive effort of bringing data together was led to put to the test a fashionable notion. It's not as if a database just happened to provide the data. "Informative" without stipulated object is an invitation to string salient anecdotal observations without order. What do we wish to be informed about?
Talking of the Torah, wasn’t this - a moralising text with its clear lists (...)If this is meant in reaction to my mention of what Christians know as Gn 2:17 -- what I meant to point out is how salient the cognitive dissonance of that generally overlooked name, knowledge of good and evil, understood as an elementary definition of morals, in the role of something advised against -- how salient the cognitive dissonance thereof is with the ostensible and generally assumed intention of Gn 2-3 to second the handing down of morals from the deity.
data is the results of in depth complex analyses.You can spend a lifetime investigating all the wars of the 20th century and from this derive the datum: Number of wars = 30 (or whatever). It doesn’t tell you much does it?
your mistake is one of litteracy… you think ‘‘data’’ is the same as stock taking… its not… its an in-depth overviwew containing ALL valid points findings, facts and obvious conclusionsOK, so we have different understandings of the word "data". My use of the word here refers to the data used in the study, obviously. Take a look. It's flat, one dimensional data.
To overcome these limitations, here we systematically coded records from 414 societies that span the past 10,000 years from 30 regions around the world, using 51 measures of social complexity and 4 measures of supernatural enforcement of morality.In my book, this means that the data is literally 55-dimensional.
the filtered data in the report isn’t reflective of the data available on the topic…Of course when not aiming towards conclusions assembling observations and thus free to not align them (heard of "all other things equal"?) there's lots more observations available, only not usable to the given end.
data that “shows” complexity preceding moralising gods by around 100 years or less, thousands of years ago. Do we really know with such precision what was going on in people’s mindsI don't see it as a precise but rather as a vague portrait of peoples' minds contents (vagueness/precision vs inaccuracy/accuracy). At least it doesn't trigger me as I often am over an all-too-frequent tendency to portray the minds contents of people as uniform. I feel plausible portrayals of what people would typically think or believe usually fail to include an assessment of how widely reasoned outliers could distribute. And this is important given the arbitrary bits of the very poor record we have.