Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality


Jim McGinn wrote:
> JAE wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > JAE wrote:
> > > > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > > > JAE wrote:
> > > > > > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And yet the only thing you can dispute about my EGH is the nature of
> > > > > > > its publication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have several things that I dispute about your *claims*, like the
> > > > > > generalization that humans are 'undisputedly' the most territorial
> > > > > > creatures ever. You provide no metric for this claim other than that
> > > > > > you don't dispute it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What kind of metrics would you suggest?
> > > >
> > > > Since it's something you seem to think is absolutely indisputable, it
> > > > seems like you should be able to provide some measure for this,
> > >
> > > You are providing the measure.
> >
> > Ha ha ha. Seriously,
>
> I am serious. If my claim is that my hypothesis is
> indisputable then the fact that you cannot dispute
> it supports my claim.

You are confusing "can't" and "don't" dispute it. Actually, Jim, the
reality is that I consider you completely inconsequential and as a
result, really haven't bothered to even *try* to dispute your
"hypothesis." I've found your pronouncements on other subjects, like
your ridiculous dismissal of genetic drift, your riduclous assertion
that we evolved from chimps, such that I don't really feel like you're
pronouncements about your views are warranted nor do I think that you'd
recognize a valid dispute if one was presented. Since on top of this,
you've seen some reason to avoid placing it in any realistic forum to
get critique or gain acceptance, I'm also left with the conclusion that
at some level, you don't give a rat's ass abou it either. Right or
wrong, you've made yourself irrelevent through your own doing.

But if you're looking for something to try to patch in your
"hypothesis" how does your hypothesis reconcil adaptive fitness in the
individual with behaviors that are manifest only at the population
level and don't appear to assist others with biological relationships
(and consequently, similar genetic makeup) over those with whom no
close ties are shared? It's all well and good to say that you're a
group selectionist, but your model doesn't actually address the
mechanisms in any detail with which to address this.


> > if you believe that humans are the most
> > territorialistic species ever, you should be able to demonstrate this
> > by some metric.
>
> But if you don't dispute it then why bother.

You're still confusing "dispute" with "gives a rat's ass." Being
disputed requires that someone cares. Since at some level, you don't
seem to care, why the hell should I?

> > I've not seen you do this at all. I've seen you say
> > that it is and leave it at that. This sort of thing doesn't lend
> > itself to much of a scientific hypothesis because your data isn't
> > actual data. Until you clean up this sort of problem, there's no
> > reason to care whether or not your hypothesis is "undisputable" which
> > isn't a ringing endorsement. The ability to dispute a hypothesis isn't
> > its strength. "Undisputable" as you've put it isn't significantly
> > different from "untestable" which makes it something less than science.
>
> You're confusing yourself. The testability of my
> hypothesis is very high because of its detail.
> The indisputability of it is a result of the fact
> that the details are correct.

Outline the tests that you'd perform then if you were attempting to
falsify the hypothesis. It seems that you're confusing "indisputable"
with vague and untestable, but you can easily reject this if you can
provide the sort of test that could falsify it. Something that can't
be falsified isn't a hypothesis, no matter how "indisputable" it is.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like you take it seriously since you're
seemingly content to parade it around this newsgroup where you seem to
hold all other posters in distain but haven't or won't actually try to
refine it to publish it in a suitable journal. Do be aware that if you
chose instead to forever go on about the "indisputability" of this,
you are simply fringe material that will wash away with your passing.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... > Actually, Jim, the ... really haven't bothered to even *try* to dispute your ... > provide the sort of test that could falsify it. ... > chose instead to forever go on about the "indisputability" of this, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... delusional-schmuck, er uh, Jimmy. ... complete enough to dispute in full form or to really bother with at ... but the fractions that squeak through in your various diatribes ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Impeccable
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> not the genius that you claim to be. ... > up my solution to human evolution as evidence that supports this ... It would seem, then, that the best way to dispute my, to use ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Why You May Never Comprehend Human Evolution
    ... > Jim McGinn wrote: ... >> dog whether he thinks your car needs a tune-up. ... inability to dispute it. ... detailed hypothesis that I presented. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >>> IOW, Jason, herein you've produced an incredibly lame ... >>> excuse for pretending to ignore my hypothesis. ... bothers to try to dispute your hypothesis is that it appears largely ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading