Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
BARD (bard@netcom.com)
Sun, 16 Apr 1995 00:41:36 GMT
In article <3mn1t1$2r6@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
JoeBeaver <joebeaver@aol.com> wrote:
>BARD writes:
>
>> So your acceptance of the premise is more connected to
>> what you believe about other species than what you *know*
>> about A. species...?
>
>
>
>> BARD
>
> I seem to be missing something here. (I know, I know, I really
>walked into it with that one.) My acceptance of the premise in question
>is dependent on evidence in support thereof. The "large terrestrial"
>discussion does not provide any evidence _for_ the premise--it only
>provides evidence against a possible argument against the premise. To put
>it more generically, the assumption does not lead to the conclusion--the
>assumption being the "large terrestrial" and the conclusion being the
>premise in question.
> I think it's possible that we've gotten so far away from the original
>question (the 'premise') that we are no longer arguing about the same
>thing. It might be useful to go back to the beginning. To that end,
>perhaps you would post the 'premise' again, along with your reasoning.
>That way, we would both be sure we were talking about the same thing.
>
> Joe Beaver
>
>
________________________________
I made the point that "large terrestrials" are discovered
all the time.
You asked for an example of a "large terrestrial" discovered
within the previous two decades. You added the condition:
"new species within an established genus don't
count."
I noted that by adding this condition you require my
assertion to conform to your definitions ("heads you win,
tails, I lose").
You went on to clarify what you had really meant when you
asked me to present evidence of a recently discovered "large
terrestrial" etc.
I put the question to you that if I presented such evidence
per your conditions would you then accept the premise/point
(large terrestrials discovered all the time).
You responded you'd be forced to concede "it was possible."
I responded,
So, your acceptance of the premise is more
connected to what you believe about other species
than what you *know* about A. species...?
Inasmuch as I clearly introduce a second premise with the
above sentence, your call for a restating of "the premise" is quite
proper; however, what I seem to be doing here is connecting the
child to the parent; that is, reconnecting the discussion to
the idea that started it.
Thus, I'll restate this root premise:
I believe A. species did not die out, but was in fact
killed off.
BARD
|