Method and disputation (was Re: Incest taboos)
Gil Hardwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 19 May 1995 04:15:31 GMT
In article <60.11144.3724.0N1E1F02@canrem.com>, J. Moore (email@example.com) writes:
>He's got the picture; he's asking for the reference.
No he's not, Jim. Bryant is AS USUAL wanting only to tackle me over my
own doubts as to the validity of his sociobiology.
As I have repeatedly asked him and others over so many years to provide
us with research data supporting their theories instead of abusing us
and trying to have us denied access to the Internet, so they sit there
at their computer screens trying to cover themselves by demanding this
documentation from us.
The difference between us lies in whether we work from primary data
sources, or from secondary literature resources.
Now, towards resolving that stand-off, let me add that we have taken
our turn at the cloisters reading the books, and we have taken the
American point of view into account. What we would like to see now is
them come back out with us into the field and SHOW US what it is they
are looking at, different from what it is we are looking at, so that
we can ascertain that the difference is not merely interpretive.
Then maybe we can get a better handle on what is happening, instead
of me sitting here facing such abuse.
People just don't die for no reason. So many people don't talk about
people dying for no reason, for no reason.
Doctors do not fly elders in from the desert to sing to patients at
their bedside in their own language for no reason, especially when
they are otherwise unable to diagnose in Western medical terms the
nature of the ailment from which the person is plainly and obviously