Asking for AAT refs a no-no?
J. Moore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 8 Nov 95 17:10:00 -0500
> Actually, since Ms. Morgan is, theoretically, at least, the "resident
>expert" on the AAT, it is reasonble of Jim to make the challenge to her.
>Remember that MORGAN is the one who *should* have her facts straight. We
>are just holding her to a reasonable expectation. We certainly wouldn't
>hold amatuers like Troy Kelley or Mark Hubbey to such rigorous
TC> The psychology and sociology and meta-science of those against the AAT
TC> never ceases to amaze me.
TC> Ms. Morgan is a grandmother. I can picture her like Andy Rooney
TC> composing her books on an old Underwood consulting notes on 3 by 5 cards.
TC> It would be rather a burden for someone who works in that style to
TC> type in ALL the references. Not like appending a text file to a
TC> usenet post.
So you're saying she cannot be expected to provide any refs
whatsoever, not even this one, despite the fact that, according to
James Borrett, she is very "helpful in this respect". And while
you're picturing her composing on an old Underwood, perhaps you'd
be so good as to explain to me how an old Underwood is used to
post time and time again on the Internet.
TC> I have this mental image of Jim and Phillip and ... at a public
TC> lecture by Ms. Morgan jumping up and down and yelling
TC> HOMINDS WERE NEVER AQUATIC. NO. NO. NO. THEY NEVER WENT IN THE WATER.
TC> NAAY. NAAY. NAAY. :-)
No doubt as accurate as your picture of a professional writer and
frequent Usenet poster using a typewriter to do so...
TC> Their reflex seems to be to place the origin of any feature that
TC> distinguishs man from ape as close to the present as possible and
TC> to put the split as far back as possible.
But of course that isn't done; but perhaps you are about to
provide info to the contrary?
TC> that lacking evidence to the contrary, that these various
TC> features would have their origin spread out in time throughout
TC> hominid evolution. To place them automatically in fairly recent
TC> times seems to be evidence of an unrecognized assumption in
TC> PA thinking.
The theory that seems guilty of grouping distinguishing features
at one or the other end of a time scale is the AAT; it has been an
uphill battle trying to make AATers here realise that using this
particular unexamined assumption doesn't make the slightest sense.
Jim Moore (email@example.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *