|
|
Re: Tears, and the Underwood.
Phillip Bigelow (n8010095@cc.wwu.edu)
15 Nov 1995 14:51:53 -0800
Elaine Morgan <Elaine@desco.demon.co.uk> writes:
>2. One basic fact seems to have been established. Human psychic tears
>are unique among primates, as unique as speech or the decended larynx
>or the loss of body hair, and therefore as likely to shed light on the
>origin of our species.
I don't want to be too picky, but do you have a science journal REFERENCE
for your "basic fact"? I would love to take you at your word, but, since
this newsgroup is a "science" newsgroup and all, I thought I would ask.
> Attempts to throw doubt on this have been
>derisory. If anyone still doubts, it may testable,
Now you have me confused. If you claim that human psychic tears are
unique among primates, and is a "basic fact", you are
inferring that the hypothesis has ALREADY been tested. So, where is this
already-conducted test published?
>Prediction: I predict that in the case of non-human primates, any
>anatomist looking for the nerve from the frontal lobe to the lacrimal
>nucleus will fail to find it.
This study may have merit in it's own right. As far as a test for
psychic tears in non-human primates, it may be more ambiguous.
Because neurologic wiring is so similar in the
anthropoid primates, I'll make a prediction that the nerve expresses itself
identically (or nearly so) in both the anthropoid apes and in humans. But,
getting back to the psychic tears "fact" that you claim exists (see your
comment above), I still don't understand why the test needs to be conducted
to prove it if the "fact" has already been established.
<pb>
|