Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Eric Brunner (email@example.com)
13 Aug 1996 17:35:50 GMT
Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: First, allow me to put a little history out for your consideration:
Agreed. His corpus in sci.anth has been rather Twilight Zone-esque.
: A few months ago, Bryant began posting to sci.anthropology, cleverly
: trying to pass himself off as a professor of anthropology in defense
: of Gerold Firl.
But is s/he?
: He immediately began potshooting at certain people,
: particularly myself, Eric Brunner, and Mary Beth Williams, on the
: grounds that they "did not understand evolution". What it really
So far, as a processualist/selectionist he hasn't hit the usual high points,
so I for one haven't learned anything from him on that score. Then again, I
find David Rindos a better read on every score, and he _is_ one, prof and
processualist that is.
: means is that we set questions about his theories that he finds
: difficult to answer.
: What I have found with him is a relentless eagerness to accuse others
: of some of the same tricks he pulls. (Remember how just a few days
A the most recent author of moral relativity to settle Indian Land Claims.
Always a familiar foray, rarely well done.
: > Truth at the lab door.
: > Many scientists are questioning the ability to measure things in any universally
: predictable manner. Physics and chemistry are currently undergoing a revolution
: thanks to the insights of chaos theory. The gist of this is that there are many
: factors which can affect a phenomenon. Consistently, I have seen Bryant rule
: out the possibility that other factors other than his pure vision of science
: affect his conclusions.
Oh. So he's also the current Chaos Theoritician. I see. Maybe he can explain
fractional dimensional Hausdorf space topology to me then, I can always use
: > standards of evidence to Gale earlier, and felt so frustraited that he
: > refused to reciprocate. (Without a standard of evidence, my
: > science-trained brain tells me, how can we evaluate which perspective is
: > more useful?)
: Actually, he is claiming some contradictory things. He announces
: that Science is more amenable to uncertainty than Religion is and then
: he turns around and says that the superiority of Science comes from
: its ability to more certainly portray the Universe.
I noticed that. It was internally inconsistent, and within one post. A nice
: bold new challenge. If Science truly wants to defeat the most worthless
: and dangerous superstitions, it is going to have to open itself to good
: criticism. It cannot take as a given its own unbiased nature. It must
: listen to the questions and work towards providing acceptable answers.
Personally, I'm waiting on the advocates of High Scientism to explain the
work of a mathematician... Kurt Godel...
I can wait, of course, I'm not a strict constructionist (mathematically
speaking that is).
: Joel GAzis-SAx
Nice summary Joel, as a poster s/he leaves a bit to be desired.