Re: Are we "special"?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Rohinton Collins: "Lumper or Splitter?"
• Previous message: Lawrence Sayre: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Tom Clarke: "Re: Are we "special"?"

Robin Gripp <tac39@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<32a968cc.2266967@news.dial.pipex.com>...

> As a passing thought, if we do not think our own species to be
> special - even if only to ourselves, why would we even bother to
> download this newsgroup ?
>
> Best wishes
> Robin .

Let's kill this thread once and for all. 'Special' in the way John meant it
is subjective, relative and egocentric. Science is interested in nothing
pertaining to these qualifications. We, as palaeoanthropologists are
interested in hominids because it is our particular interest. Cellular
molecular biologists get worked up over cellular chemistry. You could argue
that one is more likely to be interested in our origins as opposed to the
origin of other species, but again, this is subjective, and irrelevent, as
is this thread.

We are (some of us) scientists. We should only be interested in objective
and instructive observations, assessments and questions. Like "what caused
encephalisation in hominids?", not "Are we special?"

Regards,

Roh

• Next message: Rohinton Collins: "Lumper or Splitter?"
• Previous message: Lawrence Sayre: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Are we "special"?"
• Next in thread: Tom Clarke: "Re: Are we "special"?"