Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....

Phil Nicholls (
Fri, 03 Nov 1995 19:16:11 GMT (H. M. Hubey) graced us with the following

> (Phil Nicholls) writes:

>>A better response, assuming you had actually read the articles cited,
>>would have been to state specifically what about these articles you
>>object to. Instead you complain that they contain "raw measurements"

>How can anyone object to photos? There are raw measurements
>of bones etc. Nothing to objec to there either. The problem is
>the conclusions drawn like the Bell Curve, Jensen, Burt, Spearman,
>Hernstein, Thurstone, etc keep arguing about arguable things, not
>necessarily things that are irrefutable conclusions from the data.

First of all, I think photographs of chimpanzees on the savannah and
recorded observations by primatologists are about as irrefutable as
you can get, Mark.

Second of all, you are attempting (rather badly) a guilt by
association argument. Again, why can't you just tell us SPECIFICALLY
what you object to? How are the conclusions NOT supported by the
data? All of this heming and hawing makes one think that you have
not actually read the article in question.

>>Tell me, is this the way you teach?

>I don't teach PA so there's no reason to say anything of
>this sort.


> Regards, Mark

Phil Nicholls
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley