Re: Elaine Morgan: 88 Years old and still head and shoulders above your typical anthropologist

On Dec 6, 1:38 am, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 6, 2:54 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:31 pm, Algis <algiskuliu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wow, thanks Lee! This is gold.





Aquatic Ape (non)Theory: Comments on a Recent Guest Lecture
by
Cameron M. Smith
PhD, Department of Archaeology
"If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of
time listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the following
points.
1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and, despite
what was presented at this lecture, it has been found to be severely
wanting. AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is
known as a post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does
not really have a coherent body of theory, only a few disassociated
(non)explanations for a few biological characteristics of the genus
Homo. People should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable
alternative' as claimed at the lecture.

If it's been scientifically "reviewed" then shouldn't a citation be
given so people can read it for themselves?
Why not?

"There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit."


Should we presume

Should we presume there were any (valid) citations given in the talk
he attended?


he's referring to Langdon (1997) the only 'review' in a peer-reviewed
anthropological journal?

Yes, I agree there isn't much in the scientific literature. That's
because
there is little there to critique in the first place.

If so, that was no rejection. It was a straw
man portrayal of what Langdon thinks the AAT should be. Like this guy,
it puts the so-called AAT under the same umbrella as von Daniken's
aliens from space idea. Really, can't these guys discriminate between
the two? If he means Roede et al (1991) then he should realise that
although the overall conclusion was also marginally against a strong
(exaggerated) form of the hypothesis, Vernon Reynolds actually
endorsed a weak form of the hypothesis. If not these two, then what?
Jim Moore's web site? And this guy is claiming the scientific high
ground? It's a farce of course.

Endosement by Reynolds is not evidence of anything.



Cameron Smith probably does not even know what the so-called AAT is.
So who on earth is he to lecture people about what is a credible
alternative or not?

Who's fault would that be? He has better things to do, like completing
a PhD
(which he did), unlike yourself who is willing to waste time arguing
on
a forum which amounts to nothing more than writing on a bathroom
wall.



2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory device. It
is poorly regarded because it has been examined and found to be
invalid. It is not poorly regarded because of some scientific cover-up
or paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot
accept change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it
has been pointed out that science is the worst place to try to hide
anything because fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is
simply a theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
anthropologists.

"a poor explanatory device"? What the *** does that mean? It explains
pretty much all the major ape-human differences - easily. I think
that's a pretty good explanatory device.

That's why you will remain forever out of the scientific loop, that's
my prediction...
prove me wrong. Get your PhD and publish original research. I WILL
listen at that
point. Until then, anyone who understands the scientific method will
surely avoid
the pop-books and worthless web pages appealing to the von daniken
types.


<snip reruns>

I think Elaine clearly struck a nerve here. Good for her! What kind of
scientific institution is it that requires misguided PhD students to
protect intelligent people from making up their own minds by hearing
ideas first hand?


Cameron Smith has shown himself to be a fool.

He wasn't so much of a fool as to not complete what you do not seem to
be able to do.
So if appeals to authority (as you did to Claudius in another post)
are valid, then whining
about no one will listen is no ones fault but you own.




.

Loading