Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.


"mclark" <mclark13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115813801.384983.299950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Pauline M Ross wrote:
>> On 10 May 2005 13:54:28 -0700, "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> If Moore stuck only to identifying errors of fact, that would be
>> >fine,
>> >> but the attempt to paint AAH supporters as either ignorant or
>> >wilfully
>> >> deceptive, and the constant use of emotive language ("dodge",
> "cute
>> >> little trick", "spouting off", "suspiciously carefully", etc)
> makes
>> >it
>> >> look like a fairly zealous crusade on his part.
>> >
>> >What, precisely, was innacurate about Jim's characterization? He
> was
>> >rather explicit about where Attenborough got his facts wrong.
> Where,
>> >similarly, did Jim miss the mark?
>>
>> Did you read it? Jim's method is to assert something (there was no
>> such thing as the savannah hypothesis, savannah grasslands is an
>> incorrect term, the male hunting theories have long been obsolete,
>> whatever) and then take issue with anyone who disagrees.
>
> [whingeing...? That Algis, always pulling things out of thin are]
>
>> But picking over every last word of a radio braodcast aimed at a
>> general audience is a bit over the top ('savannah grasslands' is
>> surely a more meaningful description than 'mosiac savannah woodlands'
>> for Joe Public - grass *is* the defining feature of savannah) , and
> he
>> has no business ascribing base motives to anyone.
>
> "The idea of the "savanna hypothesis" is important in discussions of
> the AAT/H because it's the method by which AAT/H proponents
> inaccurately claim that paleoanthropologists use the same sort of
> environmental determinism that they use."
>
> There is the criticism, and where is your rebuttal?
> No business "ascribing base motives", is that it?
>
That's about as far as the AATers will go in engaging
Jim's critique. Even Algis' vaunted rebuttal is nothing
but a rehash of the tired old AAT drill.

We've now got their new take on Jim. His site is all a
gigantic hissy fit because Elaine Morgan is more popular
than Nancy Tanner. Reading comprension difficulties
don't begin to cover the intellectual inadequacies -to
be as delicate and non-abusive as possible- of this approach.
Never mind that in academic circles where Tanner etc operate
Morgandoesn't exist. The criticism is that Morgan gives no proper
acknowledgment to work in a field to which she claims
to be making a significant contribution. This is a specific
criticism to against which a specific defense could be
mounted were such a thing actually possible. Instead
we get a portrait of a deeply, grieving Jim Moore reduced
to issung bitter, twisted rants. One would have to say
that the moral highground Pauline and Algis attempt to
occupy is turning to quicksand.

Its amusing to see how the implications of Marc's 'critique'
is winging way over their heads. Marc denounces it as
outdated and irrelevant. Outdated? The program was
aired within the last month. Irrelevant? Its a specific
response to the program. What, apparently, is outdated
and irrelevant is the content of the program - Hardy / Morgan
AAT. For Marc it's all about him.

Rick Wagler


.