anthropology: the village idiot of disciplines
- From: "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 May 2005 10:14:43 -0700
JAE wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > "JAE" <jae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1116291860.185587.291540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > > Sciences (and other disciplines) can go
> > > > wrong in all sorts of ways. PA is not like
> > > > Astronomy in the 1630s, in that a new
> > > > paradigm has arrived. The old one has
> > > > simply worn out. It ceased to have much
> > > > relevance somewhere between 50 and 100
> > > > years ago. It stopped working. It forgot
> > > > the questions that it was supposed to be
> > > > answering.
Well stated, Paul.
> > >
> > > And this is something that you have concluded whist you refuse to
> > > actually familiarize yourself with the literature.
No, we conclude this from the fact that you yourself have no hypothesis
at all.
> >
> > Would you need to 'familiarize' yourself with
> > the publications of the papal astronomers or
> > around 1700-1750 to know whether or not
> > they were doing good work in science?
>
> If after repeated claims a number of people kept telling me that they
> didn' say what I claimed they did, then yes. But your argument is as
> specious as ever. The test of time indicated that papal astronomy
from
> that era isn't worth much today. You're making the claim that things
> written TODAY are all garbage and basing this on some nebulous
concept
> of what you think anthropology is.
No, we're claiming that things written by anthropologists today are
nebulous by design. You yourself have no hypothesis (and you have no
dispute with my hypothesis) but you spend all your time pretending to
be disputing AAT. You epitomize nebulousness.
Since it's clear to me that you get
> your facts wrong, that you repeatedly say things that simply aren't
> true, your comparison has no real value.
>
> > > Your opinions are
> > > based on less than what falls out of your anus.
> >
> > You only need to look at the titles of articles
> > in the 'learned' journals to see that they have
> > nothing to say.
>
> While this doesn't surprise me, concluding that you know the content
of
> the paper from the title is moronic, Pauli.
We don't see you discussing content, Jason.
It's a sign that you're
> not just bigotted, but you've also chosen to be an ignorant bigot. I
> don't expect you to ever change, but it's nice for those who every
once
> in a while seem to think you have something substantive to add to
> realize what fool you are.
>
>
> > > You just make up your
> > > opinions, conclude youre more enlightened that others, reject
> anything
> > > anyone says contradicts your stubborn opinion without actually
> > > bothering to review it.
> >
> > If you could contradict my argument,
> > all that you'd need to do -- were you in
> > a decent (or even a working) science --
> > would be to refer to some good work
> > going on at present, or over the past
> > twenty years or so. Anyone in such a
> > science would automatically respond
> > in that way. Yet such a possibility
> > does not even occur to you.
Well stated. Jason wouldn't know where to start.
>
> When people have forwarded you to such work, you've dismissed it,
> saying you know what it is going to say. Since this is your pattern,
> repeated pattern, what makes me think that you're any more likely to
> actually take a look now?
>
> > > That, Paul, is why you're a nutcase and why
> > > you remain a joke who still looks more and more like someone
> smarting
> > > from a bad grade or someone who got their limey ass kicked and
> can't
> > > seem to get over it.
> >
> > If only. Imagine someone proposing a
> > similar argument in modern Cosmology,
> > Mathematics, Physics, Earth Sciences or
> > Biology. It would be almost inconceivable.
> >
> > Yet when I make the point as regards PA,
> > all you can do is make a weak attempt at
> > personal abuse.
>
> You haven't made any points Pauli.
Nor have you Jason.
You've made a comparison based on
> your own admitted unfamiliarity that you believe you're justified in
> because you can conclude content from a title. The personal abuse is
a
> freebie, Pauli. Sometimes it's fun to tease the village idiot.
You are the idiot here, Jason. You are the one proposing that human
evolution happened for no reason at all. If I got this wrong then feel
free to correct me by explicating your hypothesis. (Of course we all
know this will never happen.)
Jim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Jim McGinn: the village idiot of SAP
- From: rmacfarl
- Re: Jim McGinn: the village idiot of SAP
- Prev by Date: Re: Hairlessness and sweating - tentative hypothesis
- Next by Date: Re: Hairlessness and sweating - tentative hypothesis
- Previous by thread: lovely letter from dry aper
- Next by thread: Re: Jim McGinn: the village idiot of SAP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
