Re: Savanna nonsense


Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> JAE wrote:
>
> > [snipped, the usual crazed, self righteous, pedantic ranting]
>
> Jason, it's no wonder creationism is on the increase in America if
> people like you represent the case for evolutionary science there. Such
> constant, tedious hostility is bound to put any would-be scientist off
> for life and send them running to the nearest comfort zone, even if it
> happened to be a church (in my case, however, it would be a pub.) I bet
> when students walk out of your class for the last time they thank God
> they'll never have to hand in a piece of work to you again. The irony
> is: You're probably taking this as a compliment. Putting people off
> science is what you *want* to do, isn't it? Only really clever people,
> like you, should be allowed to do that.

If people like you represent the British educational system, we're in
big trouble because you've come through with a master's degree and
you're as ignorant as a rock. Since I've met other Brits for whom this
is not true, I'll not make that generalization. You represent yourself
and your ideas and you don't do it well. It's also a good thing that
you *don'tt* bet about how my students have reacted to me because the
overwhelming majority (n>1000) give me very favorable reviews. What I
want to do is make sure that if people do science, they don't engage in
the stupid half-baked excuse for science that you typify. Is it only
for clever people? That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the
methodology that is practiced and presently, the methodology I infer
from your postings says that you're not doing good science.

> You seem to have decided, on day one, that this thing, mislabelled the
> 'AAH', is wrong and that anyone who has the audacity to argue for it
> simply must be wrong too. So, you have set about on your crusade,
> trawling the newsgroups day after day, hour after hour, for anyone
> daring to "bastardize the scientific method" by giving it serious
> consideration. I accept that it's not *only* AAH proponents that incur
> your wrath. Anyone who you perceive as not being "in with strict
> orthodoxy" gets your goat just as much.

You seem to be particularly dense and seem to want to believe that I'm
prejudiced against water. I suspect it's because facing the music and
realizing that what you're presenting is a load of horse*** that
underscores your own ineptness and the abysmal failure that your own
education has produced is far, far more difficult to deal with. You
HAVE presented a bastardization of the scientific method. You do so
every time you substitute your inferences for observations. You do
every time you present a 'research design' that is circular in nature
and at heard doesn't address the questions you claim it does. You
perceive this to be an attack on AAX because that's what you promote,
but the reality is that it is your methods, your overall lack of care
and clear thinking that brings about scorn and criticism. Until you
accept this, you will continue to be a pseudoscientific hack and an
abysmal failure blabbering about prejudices that don't exist stuck in
some other reality where it's politically important to lay blame at a
scientific establishment for 45 (or is it more than 100) years of not
paying attention to what Algis thinks is important. You're so off the
mark that it's not funny, and you get my scorn because in addition to
simply presenting your own particular brand of bad science, you seem to
have this need to blame others (sometimes me, sometimes physical
anthropology in general) for your problems. Grow the *** up, crybaby.


> When you find someone like me, who has even gone back, far too old, to
> academia to study it and is trying, naively probably, to actually *do*
> some science, (because they have not found the answers satisfactory
> from your sacred orthodoxy, to why this thing *is* wrong) you have to
> intensify your efforts: Pick all the holes in any words and phrases you
> can; Take literally any piece of conversation said in haste and, as if
> you were the editor of some pretentious scientific journal reading a
> carefully worded manuscript, attempt to tear it to shreads; And,
> whenever the opportunity arises, twist any sentence that happens to use
> the word "you" (even if used generally, as in "one") into lies,
> accusations or pretend insults against your oh-so-precious reputation.

All you have are your words. I do not have to do any twisting of your
words to make them seem ridiculous. You have done that all by
yourself. You are not very careful with them; no more careful with
them than you are with your own research design. I do not think you
much of a thinker. Whether or not you have gone back to school doesn't
reflect on whether or not you're doing science. You have gone back to
school, but you are not doing science.

> When you can't find any, at least question the correct use of some
> words there - maybe that will cause a crack to appear in the reply and
> then you can crow-bar your way in to extract the next fatal error or
> pretend damning insult. In any case, and at every opportunity, you try
> to up the ante. In true George Bush style, you've been determined to
> have your war and damn the consequences.

And again: All you have here are your words. You are not the least bit
careful with them and as a result, you produce things that you cannot
defend. If you mean one thing but write something else, you are the
one at fault. When what you write is something ridiculous, blaming me
for calling it ridiculous is not the correct thing to do. Do yourself
a service and try not to compare me to Bush, for all it does is make
you look like a real ***, again trying to blame others for your own
personal failings.

[I'll let the insulting Bush comment slide, though the urge to say that
in true Tony Blair fashion, you're a brain-dead lacky sucking up to
Elaine Morgan's moronic notions does come to mind. Of course, you
couldn't have tossed out a Bush insult because you, Algis, are NEVER
the one to up the ante.]

> Well, look. I'm even less impressed with this now than I was before.

What you're impressed with is clearly not terribly important because
you've been impressed with some singularly stupid ***.

[snip Algis trying to blame me.]


> You say it's *me* that's
> at fault, not the message, but curiously, you didn't attack me about my
> similar speculations on the hybridisation idea, only the AAH.

It wasn't as stupid as what you've presented about AAX. Neither did
you make the overarching circular claims in it that you do in AAX. You
were more careful. I suspect it's because you aren't so wedded to the
notion that it must be true and thus you must prove it to be so as you
do with AAX, but that's just my suspicions.

[snip Algis's crying like a pathetic little baby about no one paying
attention to his Sainted Sir Hardy--boo hoo hoo!]

> Call me a poor student, naive about the scientific method and
> inadequate at doing research if you will but I thought science was
> supposed to be about open-minded, fear-free enquiry into interesting
> ideas. I thought scientists were supposed to be people with an infinite
> cappacity for curiosity about new ideas and how they might or might not
> fit into what we know already.

Whether or not I call you a poor student doesn't reflect on whether or
not science is about fear-free inquiry into interesting ideas. You ARE
a poor student if what you present here is any indication. You are not
impressive in your ability to make distinction between observation and
inference. You are not impressive with your ability even to find
papers by a particular author or find literature relevant to what
you're interested in. These latter points have nothing to do with
curiosity. Curiosity is important, but if that's your end point, you're
stopping far too soon and curiosity doesn't excuse bad methodology in
the investigations. Your methodology sucks donkey balls, Algis.

> The brand of 'scientific' orthodoxy you espouse is nothing like that.
> It's the sort of methodology that builds reputations of superiority but
> hinders progress and enlightenment.

My mileage varies. You cannot achieve any progress with faulty
methodology and your methodology is faulty. You seem to want to blame
others for this problem. The fault is your own however. Your
commentary about what I think about science misses the mark entirely.

.