Re: Forum for rational scientific debate?


Jois wrote:
<richardparker01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
....

This is 'hugely entertaining' stuff, but rational debate, no.

Sounds more like - "I sez to 'im, and she sez to me, so I sez back, so
'e sez.... and we all pick on someone whose English is not quite as
wonderful as our American/Australian.

Good stuff - keep it up. Helps to make SAP such a wonderful contributor
to the science of Paleoanthro-apology.

regards

Richard


I can't imagine why a newsgroup should be expected to be a contributor to
the science of anything what so ever. Newsgroup implies that we make news?
I don't think so.

And if you want to "and we all pick on someone whose English is not quite
as wonderful as our American/Australian." please do it someplace else. If,
on the other hand you think Marco is getting the treatment royal because of
his English, you need to do a little close reasoning with Mario.

Good Grief!

I even tried to explain it to him in his early days on SAP. Looks like
he's forgotten this:

"
How do certain members of Homo sapiens sapiens evolve to become 'anti'...

This statement of Richard's begs the alternate question, which is
greatly more germane in a scientific context: how do certain HSS
evolve to become "Pro"? In other words, why do certain worldviews
become so fixed in the minds of individuals that they are incapable of
reasoning alternate points of view?

Richard, if you visit any popular Usenet group, you will find it has
its own set of resident loonies. Sci.anthropology, for example, has
Yuri Kuchinsky (he of the Kon Tiki set) and the racists;
sci.archaelology has the Von Danikenites & various other ;
talk.origins has the creationists. Alt.woodworking cops its own share
as well. It goes with the territory, and one of the attractions for
visitors is to watch the "tribal" battles between resident proponents
of various points of view.


I've concluded that it's part of human nature to be tribal amd form
clumps of 'us' and 'them'. Once it is decided that someone is one of
'them', a process of dehumanisation takes place which, apparently,
knows no bounds.

- I've come across a number of them here (almost always anti-AAT) who
contribute nothing more than smart arse answers to a perfectly
reasonable theory - I have never come across a single positive
contribution to human thought from any of them - but then I'm new here
- so maybe they had one once.

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who has come to that conclusion.
I've been here for about five years and I must say that they do exist,
although they are increasingly few and far between.

The truth of the matter is that after a lot more than 5 years of
endeavouring to highlight what is neither perfect nor reasonable about
this "theory", the regular contributors who hold alternate viewpoints
have given up trying to debate on the basis of facts and logic, to
which Algis, Marc & others like them are singularly immune, and
generally resort to entertaining ourselves and others of like minds by
making good sport out of our resident AAH "loons".
"

Nothing that Richard has ever posted on SAP, on the Yahoo groups, or on
his own website gives me cause to think he has any new insights into
the so-called AAH that we haven't heard before.

However, what the hell... In the absence of anything else to talk about
- Richard... If you choose, I am willing to temporarily suspend my
previous dislike, so if you are ready to discuss your worldview.

The ground rules being: this is not the hallowed walls of academia, nor
a namby-pamby moderated newsgroup. No directly personal attacks, but if
I think your ideas are bull***, I'll say so, and expect no less in
return.

What I have seen of AAH is pure pseudoscience, promulgated by believers
who are not objective in assessing the evidence supports it or not. I
include Elaine Morgan, Marc & Algis most especially in that assessment,
and if your approach to the evidence is of the same quality as theirs,
expect me to tell you so.

So: if you choose to accept the terms: what is it about AAH that, in
your opinion, is so desperately misunderstood by the scientific
community...

Ross Macfarlane

.

Quantcast