Re: AAT Theory
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 29 Sep 95 22:10:06 GMT
In article <44cvi8$dh4@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu "Alex Duncan" writes:
> In article <812146194snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> Paul Crowley,
> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> >"Explanation" is the key word, Chris, and I'm still waiting to see even
> >the beginnings of an attempt at a non-AAT one. Parsimony only matters
> >between two or more explanations. So far there's only one.
>
> If you are unaware of other explanations, then my working assumption must
> be that you've never actually read anything in the paleoanthropological
> literature. You should strap a sign to your back that says "ignorant."
My posting is partly a reply to Chris's earlier one in this thread when
he said there were two hypotheses: (a) the AAT and (b) the non-AAT.
(I paraphrase, of course, but (a) and (b) covered all instances.)
He maintained that (b) was more parsimonious, stating:
Ch> . . . Some of these arboreal primates began to walk bipedally on
Ch> land, perhaps to move efficiently from one forest to another. Tree
Ch> to land directly.
I don't regard this " . perhaps . . " as being an explanation. I am,
of course, aware of the other vague mutterings (e.g. how standing tall in
the midday sun helps to keep you cool) that occasionally pass as non-AAT
explanations. I'd just like to get Chris, and maybe yourself, to drop
his "perhaps's" and nail his colors to the mast and provide a real theory
or a genuine hypothesis.
> Once again, I'm nearly struck dumb by the depth of your ignorance.
> Please, please read some of the paleoanthropological literature before
> you post this kind of garbage. It actually hurts me to read it.
Ignorance about what _exactly_? Tell me where I said something
factually (as against theoretically/politically) incorrect.
If you can't do this, I think an apology for the vulgar abuse is due.
Paul.
|