sci.anthropology.paleo
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Rat Documented Swimming 400 meters

Subject: Re: Rat Documented Swimming 400 meters
From: "mclark"
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:20:35 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1131062378.815365.97080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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?
>>
>> 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.

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
someone replies.

> 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 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>