|
|
Re: Aquatic eccrine sweating ref request, was Re: tears
Phillip Bigelow (n8010095@cc.wwu.edu)
9 Nov 1995 16:18:56 -0800
I wrote:
>> Actually, since Ms. Morgan is, theoretically, at least, the "resident
>>expert" on the AAT, it is reasonble of Jim to make the challenge to her.
>>Remember that MORGAN is the one who *should* have her facts straight. We
>>are just holding her to a reasonable expectation. We certainly wouldn't
>>hold amatuers like Troy Kelley or Mark Hubbey to such rigorous
>>cross-examination.
clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>The psychology and sociology and meta-science of those against the AAT
>never ceases to amaze me.
>Ms. Morgan is a grandmother. I can picture her like Andy Rooney
>composing her books on an old Underwood consulting notes on 3 by 5 cards.
>It would be rather a burden for someone who works in that style to
>type in ALL the references. Not like appending a text file to a
>usenet post.
Grandmother or not, Ms. Morgan is the "carrier of the torch" for those
people who believe that the AAT has merit. Presently, she is the only real
"authority" that your side has. I am not criticizing that, but...
Consider that, by her own admission, she has not had any serious
peer-review by her adversaries.
Consider that her books on the AAT are reviewed only for grammatical
content by her editors, NOT for the science contained there-in.
Consider that she does not attend paleoanthropological meetings to present
papers and be butchered by her peers (as any other paleoanthropologist must
endure).
Consider that Elaine and her theories have a relatively large
following,...which, by-in-large, don't seem inclined to challenge her on any
of her points (in fact, they seem to pretty much accept her points).
So...why shouldn't Ms. Morgan be held accountable for what she writes? If
she won't rigorously adhere to citation quality in her books, then she had
better back up her statements on the 'net with better referencing.
<pb>
|