"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Jois wrote:
>> It's the "sub-culture" that keeps telling you that your presentation is
>> religion not science. How often do you need to be told?
> 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.
Nothin' stupid about it, DB. It's a fair question: How often
do you have to be told that what you are doing *isn't* science.
I don't care how often you drag out your definition of the
scientific method --that aint what you do.
> 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?
The idea has been addressed, much to your continueing
sorrow. It's addressed every time you post here and
> 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.
You don't have a smigeon of support for it. Nothing. Nada.
There --now I've told you what's wrong with it. See that? And I'll
bet $100.00 you're not satisfied.
> Can you do that? Can you, you know, be a tiny eensie-weensie bit
> scientific in doing so?
> Algis Kuliukas
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if
he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties."
-- Sir Francis Bacon