Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
2 Oct 1995 22:26:05 -0400 (Gerrit Hanenburg) writes:

> (H. M. Hubey) wrote:

>>And of course, the mainstream theories have "testable" rock-solid

>>What is proof?

>Sigh! I'm getting a bit tired of your sophist approach.

Geez, don't you think you're aiming your rifle at the wrong guy?

>You should know that in empirical science nothing is ever proved.

I already know it. I was wondering why you bring up "testable
theories" and things for AAT when you are now admitting that
such things can't exist fro empirical sciences. See below for
your comments.

>proposition follows from the axioms/definitions).In empirical science there
>is (if we are lucky) evidence,either falsifying are corroborating.
>Evidence in this sense are observable facts/events which confirm/disconfirm
>predictions made by a theory.

Great. Now we are getting someplace.

Do you still want proof of AAT?

And you still haven't gotten it right. The crux of the matter
these days hangs on falsifiability. IF what is being said is
falsifiable then at least we have a chance to prove that it's
wrong. Otherwise it just stands.

So far it seems that neither standard theory nor AAT has been
falsified. Is it because neither is falsifiable or is it because
we haven't been able to find what would falsify such a reasonably
loose bunch of statements. Let's face it; it's verbal.

>Charles Darwin "predicted" that the enlarged brain and bipedal walking
>evolved in concert:"The gradually increasing weight of the brain and skull

Predict??? Shit, it seems like an observation. All the smart animals
(i.e. apes are more bipedal than the rest). And I can further point
out that the lowlives (pun) are closer to the ground.

>He also "predicted" that the origin of man was in Africa:"It is therefore

Ok. I'll accept this. It was a good one. I should also note that there's
a site in Siberia which is about 500,000 years old (at least). The
archaeologist who's been working on the site for about 10 years
claims that it's about 2.5 to 3 million years old. That still has
to be tested since the methods he used to arrive at these numbers
is apparently an original one.

>These are two rather historical examples of testability in anthropology to

This is a rather new usage of the word testability. The idea that
an experiment (i.e. a test) either fallsifies or confirms a theory
has been put to through the grinder, and falls apart in logic.

In any case, we are still left with evidence pointing to
various possibilities, and on the basis of the evidence we come
to some conclusion and keep it until something better comes
along or new evidence which is unexplainable crops up.


Regards, Mark