Re: a little something for all you wikipedia-lovers

On Feb 15, 7:19 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael Kuettner wrote:
"Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:mgs0gx3ui2ua$.15e3240pf3rh6$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now go back to the main page and choose "English".
Search for "Aquatic Ape Theory".
Note the same masquerading as if either bull*** was anything but bull***.

Evidently the theory exists, BS though it may be. Why shouldn't there be
an article saying so? Should Wikipedia not have articles on phlogiston
theory, aether, hollow earth theory, or abiogenesis? Are there not
occasions where people finding references to any of these would want
details about them?

[...]
You see the dilemma ?
How should a pupil know which topics aren't controversial ?

From the part in the first paragraph that says, "The hypothesis, often
referred to simply as AAT, has been poorly received in mainstream
paleoanthropology"? From the entire section titled "Objections to
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"? From the links at the bottom of the article to
references debunking the theory?

The first place I heard of AAT was in one of the evolutionary
neurobiologist Calvin's earlier books -- he of "The Throwing Madonna"
-- and the biggest problem with it is that its inventor died shortly
after giving one paper, and it was publicized only by a wacky feminist-
anthropologist called (if I'm not mixing up my wacky anthropologists)
Robin Morgan who was clearly not equipped to do the biology necessary
to demonstrate its validity. If it's bunk, presumably the originator
would have realized he wasn't going to get anywhere with it, and would
have stopped talking about it after a season or two.

(Do the "cold fusion" guys still present cold fusion papers?)

.

Quantcast