Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality


JAE wrote:
> 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.

Do you expect anybody to believe that if you could
you wouldn't.

> 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,

Which you cannot dispute.

> 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

I think this forum is real.

> 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

Give me an example.

> 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.

Mechanism? For group selection you have to have groups. This may seem
obvious but it's really not. Geographic factors--in the context of the
monsoon forest habitat--delineated the first human groups. I'm sure
you remember from having read my hypothesis: town-sized, city-sized
patches of remaining forest habitat, islands in a sea of most treeless
and large-mammal dominated habitat.

Another important factor for group selection is that the fate of all
members of the group has to be tied together, more or less. Read again
where I explained the fact that the price of communal impoverishment
was often paid to the grim reaper of predatory massacres during the
depths of the dry season. This phenomena probably decimated these
groups. It may have eliminated full groups from time to time.

> > > 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.

1) I'd try to find a temporal discord in the fossil
record of the appearance of monsoon climate and the
appearance of the first hominids (and/or the Ethiopian
Fauna). My prediction is that the more accurately we
can date these events the more they will become closer
and closer in time.

2) I'd try to find some evidence that consciousness,
language, and intelligence could emerge in any other
manner but in the context of large groups.

3) Evidence that early hominids ventured far from
trees and water.

4) Find a behavior observable in our species that
couldn't be predicted by my 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.

No, something that can't be tested isn't a
hypothesis. Something that can't be falsified may
be either a non-hypothesis or a successful theory.

> 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.

My hypothesis predicts better than any other
hypothesis what we actually observe in our own
species. The game is over, folks.

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beyond the Savanna Mentality
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... 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: The Depths of Jims Genius
    ... >>> The answer is that you can't dispute it. ... For those of you playing at home, what we see here is evidence of one ... you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does ... McGinnian technique for fact avoidance. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Jasons Dilemma
    ... >> Jim McGinn wrote: ... >>> I wouldn't have thought you'd dispute this. ... >> Pliocene hominids at Aramis, ... >> asking me to provide references to claims I haven't made. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Conventional Evasiveness
    ... I wonder how many of the 9 specific direct questions that I put to Jim ... Why does is matter if you don't dispute it. ... interpretation of the evidence. ... So do you consider the change from Pan / Australopith LCA to A'pith to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Depths of Jims Genius
    ... >>> of evidence that indisputably supports your vague and unoriginal thought ... >> But you don't deny that you have no evidence-based dispute ... you may divine as the discussion proceeds that Jim does ... Ross, if you have a question ask it. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading