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

Re: The horror of 'speculation'

Subject: Re: The horror of 'speculation'
From: "Lee Olsen"
Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:17:14 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1161216108.982254.52010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                  (under Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition? )
>
> >> > Floods may or may not move a body very far, so to speculate one way or
> >> > another just how far or at all, is just that--- speculation.
>
> deowll wrote:
> >> I didn't break Occam's Razor. I noted a fact. Dead bodies are often moved 
> >> by
> >> water and as you noted it was on a flood plan which must have flooded on
> >> occasion or the remains would not have been buried. I'm merely noting that
> >> we can't know with certainty exactly how and where the being died.
> >>
> >> If you go back and read what I wrote and look at what you just admitted it
> >> pretty much amounts to the same thing. Floods may or may not move bodies. 
> >> At
> >> this point in time certainty is not possible in this case.
> >
> > No, actually you speculated that "The remains are not overly likely
> > to have moved very far" Very far is a speculation of distance.
> > "Flood might" is a qualification to the first  statement, which
> > means it could have, which means you said virtually nothing about
> > anything.
>
> > I don't know this for a fact, but I will go out on a limb here and
> > speculate that you are not a dentist. How is it then that you know more
> > about this than the people who wrote the report? All they said was
> > "could have" resulted in death and there is nothing committal about
> > their wording at all. Did you study this jaw in person? What are your
> > qualifications to judge  what scale would be fatal in how long?
> > Meanwhile, it was a swamp, why don't you speculate he was bit by a
> > snake? Those will kill you a lot quicker than a tooth ache.
>
> Olsen's horror at anything resembling
> 'speculation' is representative of the whole
> of PA.  Stray at all from a discussion of the
> hard 'facts' and you are no longer 'doing
> science'.

Wrong again.  Lying about my position certainly isn't helping to sell
your claptrap. I stated my position once, but because you have such a
short memory, here it is again:
Message-ID: <aVrSg.14153$j7.330802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
LO: "You may call this an assumption at the starting point if you wish,
but until some test is devised to test its validity it remains
imagination only."

My horror comes from loons like you  who start out with a false claim
(unsupported, unverified, uncited, undocumented and known only to
themselves), then spin off imaginary scenarios from it. A perfect
example:
Message ID: RVsag.9272$j7.305859@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul Crowley: "Hand axes were produced by grinding,
and at an economical rate by hominids.
Put them on a pebble beach and they'd
be ground (and broken) to dust within a
few years (or even months)."


>
> This is a nice illustration of a point I occasionally
> make, also illustrated by a post yesterday from
> John Edser to sci.bio.evolution (see quotation
> below) where he discusses aspects of scientific
> practice and theory which are _unknown_ in PA.
> He is talking about the study of biology and
> evolution as a whole.  PA is in such an appalling
> state that his wider criticisms have almost no
> direct relevance -- which is exactly my point.

My point is people who make claims like: "Chimps do NOT have the
capacity to dig." belong in a mental institution, rather than mucking
up a science forum.

>
> For a large number of reasons, PA has declared
> ALL theory anathema.  It has developed an
> intense gut reaction against anything other
> than what it imagines to be the study of 'facts'.

PA---it imagines, vague generalizations.


>
> Of course, that has left it with a huge amount
> of unacknowledged 'theory' -- which, over
> the years, has degenerated into a number of
> primitive (and also wholly unacknowledged)
> assumptions.   It has now become heresy
> even to mention these assumptions (or the
> possibility that they might be such) -- let
> alone to suggest that they could ever be
> questioned.
>
> No one can doubt that, as a science, PA is
> a disastrous failure.  The flight from theory
> is part of the explanation.
>
>
> From thread on "Re: Uneducated Criticisms of Darwinism"
> "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote .....

I ran this name in Google scholar, wonder why nothing came up on
Miocene hominid burials? Well, at least you are convalescing, citing
from those who know more than you is a step in the right direction.
Next step is to find out if John knows anything about digging chimps.


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