Re: These guard dogs (Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory")

Gil Hardwick (
Thu, 11 May 1995 05:44:19 GMT

In article <3on1da$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Gil's demonstrated himself to be either a liar, a moron, a fraud, or some
>combination of the three. Is that explicit enough for you? There was a time
>when anthropologists as a group had a tendency to lump all things about
>cultures foreign to them which they didn't understand into the category of
>"religion." Their doing so resulted in quite a few uttrly bogus claims. For
>at least several decades, most anthropologists have recognized the flaw in that
>technique. They've learned that you can't, in general, generate a valid
>explanation of some aspect of a culture unless you're willing to take the time
>and effort to learn how the society in question deals with that aspect of the
>culture. In the case of this thread, that would mean learning something about
>the Big Bang theory before categorizing it, as Gil has repeatedly done, as
>"religion." Now, Gil CLAIMS to be an anthropologist. Yet he doesn't seem to
>have learned this particular lesson regarding anthropology. He's still using
>the rule, "If it's not related to food, sex, or shelter, it must be religion."

PLEASE, Eric, Don't butt in.

Do let Carl finish reading his paper, will you. If you continue to
interrupt him so he will begin to stammer and lose his place, and get
embarrassed. Then I'll have to give him a C- . . .