Re: Aquatic eccrine sweating ref request, was Re: tears

Phillip Bigelow (
18 Nov 1995 13:28:01 -0800 (Dewi Morgan) writes:

>Various people said [edited, but trying to retain meaning and phrasing]:

Yes, mostly by me. :-)

>1) Books on the AAT are reviewed only for grammatical content by her
> editors, NOT for the science contained there-in.
>Unlike the scientific papers on the subject [see listing below].

Are you sure that these papers (which I have read, by the way) actually
were peer-reviewed? Does anyone else reading this know if peer review is
done rigorously in the journal _New Scientist_? Was rigorous and critical
peer review conducted in the _AAT-Fact or Fiction_ compendium?

>2) Ms Morgan does not get invited to PA meetings.
>So how do you think "The AAT: Fact or Fiction" came to be written? Osmosis?

Would you say that the compendium was done by the paleoanthropological
establishment, or by, mainly, a fringe group? Be fair in your answer.

>All published by Souvenir Press, and some in Penguin, etc as well. First
>two ISBNs I don't know offhand, but I could find out if anyone is that

For your information, Souvenir Press and Penguin Press do not do rigorous
scientific peer-review of submitted material.

> The Descent of Woman [1972]

Not peer-reviewed.

> The Aquatic Ape [1982]

Not peer-reviewed.

> The Scars of Evolution [1990] (Penguin 1991)
> ISBN 0 285 62996 4

Not peer-reviewed.

> The Descent of the Child [1994]
> ISBN 0 285 63212 4

Not peer-reviewed.

>"FLOAT: A new paradigm for human evolution"
> Donald Symons (ed. George H. Scherr) :The best of the Journal of
> Irreproducible Results, Workman Publishing, New York ('83)

As a long-time rabidly-enthusiastic afficianado of the JIR, I know that
anything published there should be held suspect! :-)

>"Walking Hypotesis"
> Morgan, Elaine: New Statesman and Society vol 7, Issue 305
> (Jun 3 '94) pp 37-38.

This one I *know* was not peer-reviewed for scientific accuracy.

As to the other references alluded to by the poster, I have no idea as to
how much scientific peer review went into the decision to publish. I would
be interested to hear from the editors of _New Scientist_ and _Medical
Hypotheses_ as to what their criteria are.