Re: Auditory Exostosis and Skeletal Evidence for the AAT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: George Black: "Re: AAT:A method to falsify"
• Previous message: Osmo Ronkanen: "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Maybe in reply to: JTHURB: "Auditory Exostosis and Skeletal Evidence for the AAT"
• Next in thread: David Froehlich: "Re: Auditory Exostosis and Skeletal Evidence for the AAT"

This is a side issue, and maybe not equally important to everyone
but..
On 9th Oct David Froelich mentioned the philosophy of science and
that any theory needs to propose falsifiable hypotheses.

>From the a background in the discipline mentioned let me say that
many in the philosophy of science regard that very remark in the
same way he regards the Aquatic ape theory. No, not even that. It
is still the most popular university course line, but it is less
and less tenable.
The problem is that no-one can point to any major scientific
discoveries that really happened that way.
The current trend is towards seeing science as a high level
debate - held on course to some extent by good intentions, but
always obeying the laws of good rhetoric.

I bring it up because: Making these new "rules" to disqualify
people IS an example of rhetoric, it is not example of a way
forward. As far as I can see, DF's argument didn't need the
comment at all.

-- 

Later,

Andrew Lancaster

Australian exile in Hasselt Belgium

• Next message: George Black: "Re: AAT:A method to falsify"
• Previous message: Osmo Ronkanen: "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Maybe in reply to: JTHURB: "Auditory Exostosis and Skeletal Evidence for the AAT"
• Next in thread: David Froehlich: "Re: Auditory Exostosis and Skeletal Evidence for the AAT"