Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect

Melanie L Chang (mlchang@mail.sas.upenn.edu)
2 May 1994 22:23:43 GMT

NICHOLLS PHILIP A (pn8886@thor.albany.edu) wrote:

: I will not stop discussing the aquatic ape, however, and I do not think
: that refering to it as pseudoscience is insulting IF it fits a reasonable
: definition of pseudoscience. Since any definition I would offere would
: be viewed as tainted perhaps you could provide one. What is pseudoscience?
: Are we agreed that works like "Worlds in Collision," "Chariots of the Gods?"
: and "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" are pseudoscience? Are we agreed that
: astrology, scientific creationism and astromytology are pseudosciences?

I never had a problem with your definition of psuedoscience, only your tone.

I doubt anyone would listen to my definitions, because I'll soon be
entering grad school in phys anthro and that makes me one of the people
who've been "brainwashed" by the "dominant paradigm."

I don't, however, think labeling various theories (whatever I might think
of their merit or nonmerit) as "psuedoscience" is very productive, because
such loaded terms insult people--telling people that they are stupid and
wrong is not a good way to foster discussion (not that the AATers haven't
been doing this, either). Contrary to what someone else once said, fight
fire with fire is not the best way to carry on a scientific debate.

So, what do y'all think of Waddle's matrix correlation analysis in
_Nature_? Any Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transitionists out there?

--

         _

        / \      _-'

      _/|  \-''- _ /

 __-' { |          \

     /              \

     /       "o.  |o }

     |            \ ;

                   ',

        \_         __\

          ''-_    \.//

            / '-____'

           /                 Peace,

         _'                  Melanie

       _-'                   May the wolves run by your side,

			        not at your heels.