|
|
Re: Too much pseudoscience on the Net
Brixton Centre Library (brixton@rmplc.co.uk)
20 Jan 1997 11:46:50 GMT
edconrad@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>On Sat, 04 Jan 1997, Jakob Ulmschneider
><julmschn@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
>to sci.archaeology:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Can anyone tell me the web sites of *serious* archeology online
>>magazines or else ? I am interested in many archeological topics and
>>although I am not in the field I find it very painful to search for this
>>kind of information on the www. What really displeases me is that
>>pseudoscience outnumbers real science by 10 to 1.
>>
>>Jakob Ulmschneider
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>Jake:
>
>I tend to agree with you.
>However, I think your estimate is much too conservative, certainly
>when it comes to the monumental topic of man's origin and antiquity.
>
>Personally, I figure pseudoscience outnumbers real science by 100 --
>maybe 1,000 -- to 1.
>
>Fortunately, those odds don't seem to bother Ted Holden and me.
>We assure you we'll keep fighting pseudoscience and pseudoscientists
>until we're old and gray.
>
It all depends what you mean by pseudo-science. The current idea that
bipedalism evolved as an adaption to savanna existence is a good example.
The fact is that Australopithecines perfected bipedalism millions of
years before open savanna existed in any amount. The orthodox
anthropologists have got it wrong. There is a savanna bias in ideas about
hominid evolution and the people who perpetrate it are the ones who
should be accused of pseudo-science, not those who seek alternatives.
R Stone
My college will not accept e-mails for me.
|