Well I'm pretty sure they have some evidence to support that claim, especially considering they can directly link the word to the meaning "count". Do you always just assume science is wrong?
> Well I'm pretty sure they have some evidence to support that claim [...]
> article: To this day, it is unknown how the Incas worked with these calculators. There are several hypotheses about their use [...]
It appears, that there are people who have formed hypotheses, but apparently no consensus...
---
> article: The mysterious tablets were apparently suitable for all four basic arithmetic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
Many objects are suitable for numeric calculation (technically any object), just looking around my room I see a cupcake pan and a chess board -- the chess board being a little more useful for doing 8-bit binary arithmetic, but if I combine it with the cupcake pan I can add a dedicated shift register which makes mult/div a bit easier :)
---
Your continued quote from above:
> [...] especially considering they can directly link the word to the meaning "count".
Yes, because as we all know - words in any given language only have a single meaning! 8P
> Do you always just assume science is wrong?
Last time I checked; jumping to a conclusion using a minimum of evidence isn't scientific.
Did you read the cited articles or are you basing your assertions only on this Web article? There might be a lot of detail on the evidence in the cited articles which are just not mentioned here.
It's somewhat ironic that you throw around a speculation that everything is speculated without actually trying to look at the possible evidence yourself.
> Did you read the cited articles or are you basing your assertions only on this Web article?
I did not read any of the cited articles!
> There might be a lot of detail on the evidence in the cited articles which are just not mentioned here.
I'm sure there is, but the linked article gave me no impetuous to read them; nor any guidance as to the most efficient order of consumption.
> It's somewhat ironic that you throw around a speculation that everything is speculated without actually trying to look at the possible evidence yourself.
