Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls.

Bryce Harrington (bharring@girtab.usc.edu)
9 Jan 1995 18:39:59 -0800

In article <667182702wnr@desco.demon.co.uk> Elaine@desco.demon.co.uk writes:
>Hi Phil
>You wrote: Morgan has followed the traditional path
>>of popscience and pseudoscience in that she is
>>presenting her theory only to a mass audience.
>>Pop science ignores those with expertise in the
>>area and tries to make its appeal to the public
>>at large..Pop scientists only present their arguments
>>to the masses.
>
>Oh honestly! This is Catch 22. Papers submitted to
>established scientific journals are vetted by believers
>in the conventional scientific wisdom and if critical
>of that view they are rejected. What you are saying is
>"These ideas are unacceptable and the proof of that is
>that we have not accepted them."

Talk about circular arguments, Phil. Another thing the two P's like
to do is use a comment made by one pro-AAH netperson as characterizing
the theory. What they fail to realize is that like traditional
theories, no pro-AAH people agree on all points of AAH (how could
they, there are still so many things we have no way of knowing).

Personally I really detest the "Pop science" claims. I don't really
understand what the people mean by this term. Many people would
equate "Pop science" with things like cold-fusion, flying saucers, and
crop circles. AAH doesn't fall into those categories. If anything,
I'd put it in the "things to look at a bit more." Even if it is true
that AAH is not exactly correct it may be that some parts of it may be
useful in better understanding of evolution. Phil Nicholls even
presented an article about Bonobos where ideas from the Aquatic
Hypothesis were used to illustrate another possible theory.

Bryce