Re: New Ethiopian Find - Oldest Biped At 3.8-4 mya

From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 03/28/05 

Date: 27 Mar 2005 19:03:48 -0800

JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If this is not another example of your 'double standards' what is?
>
> This is not an example of a double standard.

But you promote papers that support your argument even when they are
severely lacking in data (e.g. Krüger et al, Rodman & McHenry) but
criticise arguments you don't support (like anything I write) for not
having enough data. - Double standards.

> An example of a double
> standard is taking a study where you measure the efficiency of humans
> over a variety of terrains and say that they've no efficiency
advantage
> over some other form of unmeasured locomotion and claiming that these
> data are better than others. An example of a double standard is
> expecting a far-less-than-half-baked idea about a nebulous hypothesis
> that, by your own admission, hasn't even been defined by its
proponents
> for the better part of 40 years to get the same play in textbooks as
> material that has gone through rigors of peer review. These are
> examples of double standards, Algis. You should learn what the
phrase
> actually means.

I was foolish to claim that my pilot studies' incomplete data was
better than others.

That the AAH was not unequivocally defined was also an error in my
opinion.

But whether these mistakes are examples of double standards or not does
not help you in your defence of that claim I point at you. Do you
recognise that argument? You use it against me often enough. But I know
that you have a different set of standards for arguments you use
against your opponents than the ones they are allowed to use against
you.

> [snip]
>
> > Oh, so I am to be admonished because I don't resort to calling you
> > names? Well I do apologise. If you were so honest why did you not
> > criticise the Kruger et al paper for not even measuring the amount
of
> > body hair shaved off and the size of the bodies it was removed
from?
> > Instead of touting it as some kind of rebuttal to the Sharp &
Costil
> > and Sharp et al papers?
>
> Actually, Algis, the point is that you DO resort to calling names,
> repeatedly. Your charge of "double standard" or to compare me to a
> journalist is your way of name-calling. You mean nothing favourable
by
> this but you've created your own vocabular of slurs and slander. I'm
> admonishing you for being a twit who pretends to be civil when you
are
> not.

Oh, so you get to define what qualifies as 'name calling' too. I see.
If you get to invent the rules how can you lose?

These are just the desperate pleadings of a man who regularly lowers
the tone of the newsgroup discussions to the gutter through
instinctively escalating the antagonism to new heights.

I am civil to anyone who is civil to me and I try to avoid childish
name calling even with those who are not. I challenge anyone to sift
through our postings and compare notes. On the frequency and degree of
insults, you are amongst the worst on this ng.

> Algis, I did not tout Krueger et al as a rebuttal to Sharp and
Costill.
> I had noted that you were long using evidence for complete shaving to
> show that *reduction* could occur from a need to swim faster. I had
> noted that you were extending out one phenomenon (removal) and using
it
> to address another (reduction). You seemed to claim that this was
> kosher. I had mentioned this before I'd located Krueger et al.
> [Though this was not a difficult task, it, like so many other papers
> that seem germane to your "studies" seem to come to your attention
only
> when someone else points them out to you. Your ability to do your
own
> research beyond picking stuff up off the pop-science book rack
doesn't
> overly impress.]

And I accepted the point and thanked you for pointing me in the
direction of the Krüger paper. [Note that even here you have to sling
in an insult - attacking the messenger, not the message, and then
accuse me of doing that - not so much double standards, as doublespeak]

> I had mentioned that measuring the difference between
> human hair and naked may not apply to the difference between ape like
> hair covering and natural human like hair covering. The scope of
their
> paper was not at all to address this, but to look at a phenomenon
that
> had been widely noted and believed by athletes, namely that shaving
> helps competitive swimmers swim faster. They covered this scope, but
> in doing so, noted something curious that suggested that the amount
of
> hair removed was not an issue. This curious finding was never part
of
> their initial hypothesis.

But although 'this curious finding' contradicts the Sharp et al
conclusion that drag reduction was causing the effects it does not do
so unequivocally as there was not enough data to show that.

> If Krueger et al had set out to address as the center of their paper
> how different degrees of hair-reduction or hair loss affected
swimming,
> they should have collected more data. If they were to do a follow-up
> study looking at *why* there was no difference, they'd have to
collect
> more data. I don't admonish people for finding a curious result in
the
> process of testing something else and reporting it.

I agree. So why didn't you state this before? So are you prepared to
agree that as the paper stands it really does nothing to contradict the
Sharp et al papers - that swimming improvement was due to drag
reduction?

[snipped - more of JE's usual hostility]

Algis Kuliukas