|
|
Jois wrote:
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130985421.156676.62610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Su Solomon wrote:
> >
> > > Jeez, you are one twisted crackpot.
> > >
> > > A dogma in search of its truth, Calvin would be proud.
> >
> > What dogma?
> >
> > The only people showing any dogma here are people like you. You are so
> > sure that anything involving the dreaded 'a' factor is wrong, you
> > dismiss it out of hand on the basis of reading one abstract and without
> > the need to even conduct one tiny bit of research in 45 years. You are
> > like a creationist dismissing Darwinism.
> >
> > The 'crazy' idea, I remind, is merely this: that our ancestors might
> > have moved through water (waded, swam and dived) more than the
> > ancestors of the chimpanzees since the LCA and that some selection
> > resulted from it. Crazy, isn't it? What a crackpot idea!! Throw shit at
> > him!!! Indeed, according to Su, there is no level of hostility that
> > defenders of the faith can throw at me here that is not justified. "You
> > deserve every serve you get." Su Solomon 2005 Oct 30, 11:38 pm.
> >
> > What kind of wierdo sub-culture *is* this?
> >
> > Algis Kuliukas
> >
>
> It's the "sub-culture" that keeps telling you that your presentation is
> religion not science. How often do you need to be told?
>
> Jois
How often do you need to be told that the moon is made of cheese before
you'll believe it?
Like your's, it's a stupid question.
My "presentation" is *not* religion, Jois. I could ask: How many times
do you need to be told that? But I can do better:
The scientific method is a process where, starting with an observation,
one forms an hypothesis to explain it. Then one undertakes an iterative
process where one forms predictions on the basis of that hypothesis,
sets about testing them and then, depending on the results of those
tests, either rejects the hypothesis, modifies it, or comes up with
more tests to fine tune the hypothesis. It is well known. It is called
the hypothetico-deductive method.
Now, when it comes to this simple, plausible idea mislabelled the
so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis", this process just has not been
done. What has happenned is that a few key anthropologists reacted very
badly to the response of the British popular press after Hardy gave a
talk in Brighton in February 1960. After that sneering response
started, like bad gossip, it spread quicker than reason.
Who is being religious here? Someone who is determined to actually
apply the scientific method to this idea at last, or the rabble who
sneer at the very thought of doing so because they heard the gossip
first and like the happy thought that they're in the majority?
Tell you what Jois, why don't you actually address the idea - instead
of the label you love to place on that idea for a change?
Tell me, oh scientific one, what is wrong with this idea:
That our ancestors might have moved through water (waded, swam and
dived) more than the ancestors of the chimpanzees since the LCA and
that some selection resulted from it.
Can you do that? Can you, you know, be a tiny eensie-weensie bit
scientific in doing so?
Algis Kuliukas
|
|