|
|
Re: Tears - 1 of 2
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Tue, 24 Oct 95 11:31:00 -0500
Ja> Gosh.
Ja> I give up.
On the assumption that you aren't being sarcastic (which, given
your recent remarks about "belief" and your feeling that you don't
need to support statements you make, I have to wonder), I have to
say I'm surprised. I have not, to date, met more than a couple of
AAT supporters who are actually swayed by any sort of evidence, no
matter how well definitive.
I want to reiterate that if you don't want to get blindsided,
you, and any others here, would do well to not take what Elaine
Morgan says as if it were actually factual. By doing so, you are
only setting yourself up to have your position knocked out from
under you, and by giving you her version of "fact", Morgan is
setting you up to take a fall for her. Not a nice thing to do,
really.
Morgan, by her own admission, doesn't use scientific methods in
her arguments, but rather argues "like a lawyer". In doing so,
she simply buries contrary evidence (as she did in the tears
material), or bends and twists it until it she can claim it says
the opposite of what it does (as she did with Denton's research on
salt). Trying to support the theory is one thing, but be aware
that doing so by simply accepting what Elaine Morgan claims is
fact as if it actually *were* factual is, at best, a risky
proposition.
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *
|