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

From: JAE (jae_at_ucdavis.edu)
Date: 03/28/05 

Date: 28 Mar 2005 08:14:08 -0800

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> 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.

You use the word "promote" in a curious, mostly propagandistic manner,
Algis. Please be aware of this. In neither case have I claimed that
these papers have definitively answered questions, though both contain
something potentially useful. The trick is figuring out what it is that
is of use and using it appropriately. You seem to be confused, rather
hopelessly so, and seem to rather ignorantly call this a "double
standard" though you show no signs that you understand wht this term
means and are instead using it merely as an insult.

The Krueger et al paper indicated that there is *considerable* doubt
that reduction from ape-like to human-like hair would resemble the
*elimination of human hair as it relates to swimming. This *seriously*
calls into question any relevence you drew, repeatedly so, from Sharp
and Costill. There *may* be other explanations that may explain their
findings. You chose initially though to question the veracity of their
findings and their declaration of their subjects and then you seemed to
try to explain it away with data that wasn't presented somehow sorting
such that they'd get exactly the same results. Sure, body size might
have factored. If it were your counter explanation, one that smacked
of desperation, rather than something unique happening with hair
*removal* (again, this is what both studies addressed
primarily--neither set out to address hair reduction) required a rather
remarkable balanced relationship between size and body-hair covering in
the test groups for it to show the same effects. While possible, your
counter seems far, far less plausible. However, the manner and fervor
with which you clung to Sharp and Costill somehow being relevent to any
issue of ape-to-human hair cover transformations seemed not to change
at all in light of a study, that as presented indicated that simple
reduction wasn't the key and consequently, your extrapolation beyond it
is ridiculously questionable. The analogy that "hairlessness" in
aquatics is qualitatively different from "hairlessness" in humans
appears to be comparing things that are qualitatively different. The
studies you've cited to promote the notion that "hairlessness" in
humans might have resulted from some interface with water to improve
swimming speed similarly measure something qualitatively different from
the hair reduction we actually see. Krueger et al's findings support
this. Whether or not their paper is perfect, it *does* support this.
Using the study in this way is appropriate. I criticize your studies
because you conclude things that are *not supported* by the data within
them (like your assertion that "efficiency does not work" when you'd
done no comparison). You should really learn the difference, though it
appears you've decided that any attack on the work you do must somehow
be unfounded; you've decided your work is as good as that of others
(when, if what you present here and what you've presented in your
thesis are any indication, this is far from correct). There is no
double standard here save the one you want whereby you get to present
artificial nonesense as science and expect it to be treated as if it
weren't fecal matter.

You are very prone to project, Algis. You appear to think that I am
like you and believe things to be more certain than they are. As such,
you seem to be suggesting that in using Krueger et al's paper to this
end that I've accepted all of it and consider it flawless much like you
seem to--again ignorantly and errantly on your part--suggest I've done
with Rodman and McHenry. This is not the case, though I see that from
your viewpoint, it's easier for you to assume that this is what I do
and it makes it easier for your to lump "papers that Jason has
'promoted'" together such that you can find fault--any fault in them
and dismiss them out of hand and then falaciously accuse me of a
'double standard.' You'd be better served abandoning this tactic. It
doesn't serve you well at all.

> > 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.

And the way you clung to this considerably undercuts any credibiltiy
you have to claim to be able to identify a double standard.

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

And the way you have clung to the notion that it should have been
presented in texts despite it not actually existing considerably
undercut any credibility you had to claim to have identified a double
standard.

> 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.

This is false. There's not more polite way to put it. You are simply
incorrect here.

[snip]

> > 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.

You are defensive to the point of fault. I don't give a rat's ass how
you score me in your report card of insult disher.

> > 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.

It indicated that there was considerable doubt--CONSIDERABLE--that
there was any relevence in your extrapolation from Sharp and Costill to
address the reduction from ape like to human like hair covering. There
was enough data to show that it clearly wasn't as simple as you'd
suggested. Your counter explanation to attempt to salvage your faith
in Sharp and Costill supporting your claims required a much more
complex explanation coupled with a rather specific coincidence
relationship between hair-cover and size to produce the results that
Krueger et al had. While fair to raise this as a *possibility* any
honest look at this by you should have acknowledged this, acknowledged
that the salvage opinion was less parsimonious and in light of the fact
that the study you'd used to support your claim actually measured a
different condition (hairlessness) from that you were arguing about
(hair reduction), in light of the fact that the initial analogy was
drawn from creatures who exhibited reduction of hair covering but
showed near complete hair elimination, the most reasonable thing to do
would be to abandon the claim that Sharp and Costill supported your
claim. Much more likely is that it doesn't address your claim at all.

> > 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?

It contradicts your claim that Sharp and Costill is relevent to the
issue of hair *reduction.* This it most quite certainly does. You
appear still to want to use a paper that looks at one phenomenon and
try to use it to address a wholy different thing when much data
indicate that this cannot be reasonably done.