Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory
From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Previous message: Lee Olsen: "Topper 101: class in session"
- In reply to: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Nov 2004 09:57:08 -0800
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message news:<cnv9dv$5gt$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> In article <ac6a5059.0411230217.7b5b4b6f@posting.google.com>,
> jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
> |>
> |> Well, you know, another funny thing about Nick is that
> |> he doesn't seem to have an argument for why AAT is right.
> |> He has a hunch that some version of AAT might be right,
> |> yet he has no particular argument for any particular
> |> version of AAT. Nor does he have much of any argument
> |> as to why he seems to think we can rule out all
> |> terrestrial models in general. Instead he presents us
> |> with a tired argument that many of the terrestrial
> |> models, most notably those based on savanna, have failed.
> |> He begrudgingly acknowledges that the aquatic models have
> |> also failed. As to why he sticks with AAT it is unclear.
> |> All in all his thinking seems to be based on nothing more
> |> than his intuition about it (A'pith lifestyle) having
> |> involved water. Beyond that Nick's thinking delves off
> |> into the vagueness characteristic of those that are not
> |> quite sure what it is they think and why they think it.
>
> Bizarre. Why do you think that it is good science to have a
> pet theory? That is more religion than science.
Idiotic. The whole purpose of this discipline, dumbass,
is to develop a hypothesis that cannot be refuted. It's
got nothing to do with religion you idiot.
>
> I divide hypotheses into the proven (when we have definite
> evidence that they are right), likely (when we have inconclusive
> evidence for them), plausible (when they fit known facts well,
> and make sense otherwise), implausible (when they are possible,
> but involve some weird assumptions) and disproved (when they
> conflict with known facts).
Gee, did you make these categories up all by yourself.
>
> As far as the early development of bipedality is concerned,
> there are a couple of plausible "damp" hypotheses and a couple
> of marginally plausible behavioural ones (e.g. tools/weapon use
> in mosaics), but everything else is implausible or disproved.
> The savanna theories are all disproved.
Yes, you keep pointing out to us, over and over again,
that the savanna models have been disproved. Thank you
for your insight but this is old news. The savanna
models were rejected at least ten years ago. There's
really no need for you to mention it again. We got
the message.
>
> As far as the later development is concerned (i.e. running and
> our extreme bipedal adaptations), there are one or two plausible
> savanna hypotheses, but most of the others are implausible.
Gee, Nick forgot to mention that there are zero aquatic
hypotheses that he considers to be plausible.
Jim
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Previous message: Lee Olsen: "Topper 101: class in session"
- In reply to: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
