Re: Are we "special"?
Phil Nicholls (pnich@capital.net)
Fri, 13 Dec 1996 05:12:47 GMT
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>In article <32a94082.7074065@news.NL.net>
> G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net "Gerrit Hanenburg" writes:
>
>> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>>
>> >If you have seen any hypothesis that you think has some value,
>> >please outline it. Because, without exception, every one I've
>> >come across in the literature has been so weak, so unexamined
>> >and so poorly thought through, that I would repeat: "we have not
>> >begun to outline its probable evolution or the reasons for that
>> >evolution".
>>
>> I suggest you read the following papers:
>>
>> Aiello,L.C.and Dunbar,R.I.M.(1993), Neocortex size, group size, and
>> the evolution of language. Current Anthropology 34:184-193.
>>
>> Dunbar,R.I.M.(1992), Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in
>> primates. J.Hum.Evol.20:469-493.
>>
>> Dunbar,R.I.M.(1996), Neocortex size and group size in primates:a test
>> of the hypothesis. J.Hum.Evol.28:287-296.
>>
>> See also Byrne,R.(1995), The Thinking Ape:evolutionary origins of
>> intelligence. Oxford University Press.
>>
>> That probably spares me a waste of time.
>
>I've read Byrne and some earlier Dunbar. They are so bad
>they send shivers down my spine. Why not try to justify one
>line or the other? Ugh.
Why are they bad, Paul. That is hardly a meaningful critique. What
about Dunbar's work, for example, was bad?
Why not skip trying to justify preconceptions and just test
hypotheses? I guess it depends on whether you are interested in
science or mental masturbation.
>> >More fundamentally, there appears to be something in the
>> >training of PA's that forces them to focus on the strictly
>> >mundane and seems to render them incapable of recognising
>> >complexities of either a physical or philosophical nature.
>>
>> It is generalizations like these that sometimes make me doubt your
>> intellectual capabilities.
>
>I may not have expressed this well, but there is a tradition
>that goes back to Darwin: " . . human beings are just another
>animal to studied just like a species of nematode worm . . any
>other approach is false and unscientific . . ". Consequently
>the features that make H.s.s. truly distinctive are
>deliberately ignored. Is it any wonder the science is so weak?
>
>Paul.
What features are ignored, Paul. Brain size? Bipedalism? Language?
Why do some people study humans and primates and others study
nematodes? I know when I got interested in physical anthropology it
was the brain that interested me.
Why do you insist on making these sweeping generalizations about
physical anthropology?
Phil Nicholls
pnich@digiworldinc.com
"To ask a question, you must first know
most of the answer." Robert Sheckley
|