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


JAE wrote:
> Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> > Well that's hardly a balanced, scientific appraisal. I think the New
> > Scientist was probably treated with more respect in 1960 than it is now
> > but even if it wasn't you would have thought *somebody* in the field
> > would have had the sophistication to look past the headlines or the
> > type of media it was presented in and spend five minutes thinking about
> > some of his points. If they had they might have at least agreed with
> > him that the difference in our swimming and diving abilities relative
> > to chimps might need an evolutionary explanation.
>
> You have no evidence that people didn't spend five minutes thinking
> about it.

It was a flippant comment. You know, like characterising Hardy as
'pushing a story to the scuba club and following up with a "gee whiz,
we look a little like a whale!" article in a pop science mag.' You're
always so pedantic and precise about criticising my use of words, but
yours... you can say whatever you want, however you want.

> What you seem rather unwilling to accept is that the vast
> majority of people in the field can see that what Hardy presented was a
> load of horse*** and they can see that in five minutes and that
> anything that may be there remotely below the surface was of such
> secondary import in examining divergences between humans and apes, two
> creatures that are terrestrial and can exist solely as terrestrial
> creatures such that the appearance of a near mammalian universal like
> swimming in one really isn't the primary concern of anyone's research.

So, as I said, no need for any research there then. Five minutes was
enough. And yet, when it comes to the major difficulty of determining
if the difference in climbing abilities between a human and a chimp was
due to selection or dift - that's a different kettle of fish. We need
*ages* and lots of research to determine that.

> You should recall that at the time, the consensus that we shared
> *recent* ancestry with chimps hadn't been widely established.

True. And, perhaps more importantly, the so-called savanna theory was
at the height of its popularity too. Don't you think that was also a
big factor?

> > Is that really so far fetched? Is it really so much to ask for?
>
> Is it so much to ask that people actually think that the research they
> are to conduct has a prayer?

How do you know if it "has a prayer" until you at least *start* to
study it? How do you know if *it* has a prayer, if you don't even know
what "it" is? Hardy's original article has basically been misunderstood
and misrepresented. It was only a request for comments. His request was
met, pretty much, with silence. Do you consider that good scientific
practice? Today we have all manner of means of communication, but in
1960, publishing in a widely read, popular science magazine was
probably the best way he could publicise his idea as quickly as
possible to as many people as possible. Hardy was a FRS, not a
playwright or a doctor or a computer guy. Someone with an open mind
should have listened carefully to what he was thinking and at least
published some feedback.

> Is it so much to ask that people pushing
> an analogy actually examine the analogy to see if it's legitimate
> analogy and not a superficial chance resemblance that doesn't indicate
> similar evolutionary history? Your refusal to do so [the way you cry
> bloody murder when anyone does this and demand that your rules (you
> again being the character who hasn't demonstrated much in the way of
> understanding of evolutionary theory nor much of an ability to gather
> relevent references) are the ones that matter and the scientists with
> advanced degrees in biological sciences are somehow not fair
> comparisons though they are comparisons of exactly the analogies you
> originally posit your 'hypothesis' from] makes you look like a zealot
> of religious faith attempting to co-opt the language of science, not a
> scientist.

'People pushing an analogy' (I presume, in the sense that he was making
analogies with whales and dolphins) is not a fair way to describe what
Hardy did. He also, in the same paper, made it clear that he did not
envisage humans ever being as aquatic even as an otter. (Keep
forgetting that part though, don't you?) It was a general request for
comments about the idea that water influenced our evolution and,
shockingly, nobody really gave him any until Elaine Morgan grabbed it
by the horns twelve years later.

Why do you have to keep trying to to distort it into something that's
less modest and more far fetched? Oh yes, I know, because it would be a
really shameful indictment on the science of paeloanthropology that
nobody took note, if it is seen as the mild and modest document it was.
It's this kind of behaviour that, I think, brings the science of
paleoanthropology into disrepute. It seems it's only motive is to try
to keep a lid on this thing because it's basically a scandal.

"Zealots of religious faith?" What are you talking about? I'm
questioning why a plausible, Darwinst, idea about human evolution from
a Fellow of the Royal Society, published in a popular scientific
journal was not followed up by his, *our*, fellow scientists. Why have
you got to keep distorting what's going on here? Ditto above for a
suggested answer.

> > > You have an exceptionally naive and unrealistic idea about how and why
> > > people do research. Dreadfully few look up to "Fellows of the Royal
> > > Society" (whatever this entails) and hope to have advice handed down.
> >
> > I was countering your characterisation that would-be researchers would
> > have had to browse popular science books stands to get their
> > insipration for this (not that this idea should be so demeaning -
> > what's wrong with being open to new ideas?) If your peers do not look
> > up to the FRS today, perhaps they might have done 40 years ago and
> > certainly, again, I would have thought *someone* in the field would
> > have taken note.
>
> You have no evidence that it went "unnoticed." How do you
> differentiate between "unnoticed" and "read, but rejected because it
> contained false analogies and relied on 'facts' that were
> demonstrateably false on immediate inspection?"

How? Because, forgive me if I'm wrong, I thought the scientific method
conducted itself through the media of published articles, not through
gossip in coffee rooms. Hardy did the right thing: He published his
ideas. The right thing to do in response would have been to publish why
it was crap, if it was crap. That nobody bothered indicates to me that
it was "unnoticed" - at least in the official scientific sense. Nobody
wrote a proper reply, so what else could you conclude other than it was
just ignored?

This embarassing debacle leaves aquasceptics in the unenviable position
of either trying to distort Hardy's paper into an ever more fantastic
and wild account - to excuse the lack of response - or to just accept
that it was a terrible goof up. We can see which line you've opted for.
The trouble is Hardy's paper is there in black and white for all to see
for all time.
(See http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Hardy/Hardy1960.pdf) Anyone with an
ounce of objectivity can see that what he was thinking about, in the
context of the known fossil record in 1960, was modest and plausible
enough. And, as the years have gone by since then, more and more
evidence has arisen which shows that Hardy was basically right, at
least to think about this thing. And the more of that that comes to
light, the more shambolic the attempt looks to rubbish Hardy and
pretend that it was all good science to rubbish him from the start.

> Considering that so
> much of what you put forward falls into the latter category, you really
> ought to open up to the possibility that you're pet idea hasn't been
> ignored so much as it was rejected as foolish or insignificant.

It is not foolish or insignificant to consider that, as humans swim
better than chimps, our ancestors might have been exposed to the risk
of drowning more than theirs.

It is not foolish or insignficant to consider that wading through water
might be the painfully simple answer to the dilemma of hominid bipedal
origins that has foxed and puzzled anthropologists for 150 years, as
apes are most predictably bipedal in water.

Maybe you should open up to the possibility that "my pet idea" isn't
foolish or insignificant at all but the response to Hardy's ideas have
been - foolish, at least.

> > > [It's curious that you've routinely said you reject the argument from
> > > authority but here seem to suggest that their authority should have
> > > been acknowledged.]
> >
> > That argument is a double edged sword. You have always promoted the
> > view that scientific progress must be made from the principles of solid
> > peer reviewed established practices. I doubt you can get much more peer
> > reviewed than to be elected as a member of the FRS. Why, suddenly, do
> > you have no respect for the views of such estemed people?
>
> I do not know what goes into becoming a member of the FRS (I do not
> know if it's in large measure political, but I would not doubt it), but
> I do not believe it to be a process of peer review of a paper. You
> appear to be somewhat radically redefining peer review. It isn't a
> rubber stamp endorsement that everything the person will say has merit,
> even those ideas well outside of the individual's expertise.

I never said it was. It just gaves his ideas a little more legitimacy
than they would have otherwise. You play the ex cathedra card here
often enough. I would have thought you'd recognise and value the
argument.

> If it
> were, do you also accept that Hardy's views on ESP were of merit
> because he put them forward? Peer review is a review of what someone
> *has* done and written. It is not an endorsement of what they *will*
> do.

No, I do not think Hardy's views on ESP were of any merit at all. I
might even go as far as to describe them as (how did you put it?) "a
load of horse***." But really, you're not suggesting that a person's
view on one subject should be used to assess their argument on another,
are you? Where would that leave us? Darwin was a racist and a sexist
but it doesn't make his ideas on evolution any less worth while.

I'm sure the history of science has many Hardys, people who made great
contributions in one area but had rather silly ideas in another.

Besides, let's not forget that other FRS, Philip Tobias. He also called
on his peers to look at this thing objectively. Ten years later, still
nothing has changed from people like you: The same sneering, the same
ignorant bigotry. At least some others are beginning to move. Cameron
and Groves, for example, have shown a great deal more scientific
objectivity in this area than you have.

> > > People look for avenues that they feel will yield rewards. I'm pretty
> > > sure that most people who saw Hardy's magazine piece or Morgan's first
> > > book scoffed because it was pretty scoffable. They were making the
> > > analogy to creatures like dolphins when it's plainly clear to just
> > > about everyone (perhaps save you) that there's a qualitative difference
> > > between what passes as hairless in humans and what hairlessness is in
> > > cetaceans, what passes as fat in seals and fat in humans. It doesn't
> > > take much research to see that many of the other claims (like the
> > > diving reflex, like saying that our ability to hold our breath and swim
> > > underwater is unique among terrestrial creatures) were simply false.
> >
> > So, no need for much research here then. It was just obviously wrong
> > from the start. Funny how you've argued that it's really difficult to
> > demonstrate whether or not selection affected our evolution elsewhere,
> > and yet here - no problem, it's obviously just wrong.
>
> No compelling reason why any person would start the research because on
> the surface it doesn't seem compelling. This is a reality for anyone
> dedicating time to something. This is not the same as saying that it's
> "obviously wrong" (something I've not said so again, when you posit
> that I've said this, you're again making me think you're not a very
> honest person). It's saying that from the first inspection, you don't
> weigh the odds of it being right as that high. It's impractical to
> start high risk, low reward research especially if you're intending for
> the product of the research to start your career. Hardy's scenario and
> Morgan's scenario were high risk endeavors and this was clear at the
> get-go because they contained data that was simply false.

What are you talking about 'high risk'? You mean in terms of being
ridiculed by your peers? Yes, I can see that. We couldn't risk any
ridicule, could we? That would never do. But what else? How could you
possibly assess the risk before you at least *start* studying it? In
any case - humans do swim better than chimps, so why would that lead
any would-be researcher to consider it was a high risk that water had
influenced our evolution more than the chimps? The exact opposite
conclusion is much more likely, at least in someone with an open mind.

Besides any risk could have been dissipated by asking students to do
some of the studies. Hundreds of thousands of paleoanthropology
students that have passed through universities since 1960 could have
been assigned very low risk (to the supervisor) projects in this area
but, apparently, very, very few (if any?) did.

So, because Hardy's and Morgan's scenario "contained data that was
simply false" this somehow excuses them not being looked at? Eh? I
would have thought it would have given a clear mandate *to* look at it,
at least in order to prove it *was* false. But then, as you've already
explained, there was no need to go that far. Five minutes perusal was
enough to see it was all a load of crap, right? This stuff simply
didn't warrent any actual *science* being done to refute it. A joke in
the staff room would suffice here.

> > > It's generally not wise to pursue research that seems to rest on
> > > strange analogies and clearly false claims. Further, the argument made
> > > by Hardy had a rather substantial contradiction in that he was
> > > suggesting analogous convergence with exceptionally aquatic creatures
> > > but suggested that we weren't nearly as aquatic. That's a big red flag
> > > and most sane researchers don't plow into something that has such a big
> > > red flag in front of it. Those who looked at his analogies could see
> > > the problems with them and the problems his scenario presented and
> > > acted rationally as such. They see a terrestrial species, they realize
> > > that these features, to be produced by an aquatic interface would
> > > require substantial interaction, for which there was no evidence, and
> > > would require a terrestrial reason to keep it which, on its own is a
> > > better avenue to start researching. They realized what the
> > > "hypothesis" was up against and as Hardy and Morgan first outlined it,
> > > it was so pathetically flimsy as to warrant no real effort be expended
> > > exploring what looked (and looks) terribly hopeless.
> >
> > So no need for *any* research then - they just *knew* it was rubbish.
>
> You weren't listening a bit, were you. Most everyone who looks at
> Hardy's paper can see it's littered with some substantial problems.
> Seeing problems with his claim from the get-go doesn't inspire people
> to pursue it further. This isn't the same as saying it MUST be wrong,
> but on weight, claims that rely on bad analogies aren't where the vast
> bulk of people want to start their research.

Ok but it was a four-page discussion article, a request for comments,
in a popular science magazine, not a detailed, polished evolutionary
model in JHE.

Listen to yourself. The hoops you're having to jump through to defend
the indefensible: Hardy, a well reknowned scientist, asked his
scientific peers for feedback on a simple, plausible idea about human
evolution. He did the right thing: he published it. They did not
respond. Not one paper was written in reply, ever. Not one postgrad
student was assigned a project to even look at it, AFAIK. That is
simply appauling and yet you defend it.

> > Great science, that.
>
> They knew that the analogies that Morgan and Hardy sited were
> problematic. They knew that someo of the claims were far fetched or
> wrong, that some of the 'facts' were not true. Consequently, it didn't
> really inspire many to want to look past bad analogies and false claims
> to try to tease out anything. Realistic science, that.

If they were problematic they should have exposed them in the way that
scientists are supposed to do - by publishing papers, not by spreading
gossip and rumour in the corridors. Crap science, that. In fact, not
science at all: More like tribal, religious bigotry.

> [snip]
>
> > As I said before, I think you're asking the wrong kinds of questions.
> > Rather than ask: Why do AAH proponents do such bad science? you should
> > be asking: Why have good scientists not looked, at all, at the role
> > moving through water might have had on our evolution? That they haven't
> > is, in my view, a bit of a contradiction to the label 'good scientist'.
>
> Your view is rather strange.

Of course, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Algis Kuliukas

.

Quantcast