I believe in the aquatic ape hypothesis and people persecute me for it.

DaveC426913 said:
#36: 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is."

Pro-tip: if you don't want to be treated like a crackpot, maybe don't keep pulling straight from the crackpot playbook.
Click to expand...

Alfred Wegener. Exactly the same thing. "He went nuts in that hut in Greenland." You can shove your crackpot index.
 
Pinball1970 said:
On what? It's pop sci based on other claims by other actual scientists that has been pretty much discarded by the scientific community as either A. Pseudoscience or B. Unsupported.
Click to expand...

And for all the wrong reasons. Just more Piltdown Man. "We don't need alternatives."
 
TheVat said:
A German physician pointed out the health risks of infant diving and the sometimes serious consequences as early as 1986, writing that since the introduction of baby swimming in Germany, several hundred infants had died from brain complications as a result of sinusitis and otitis that occurred after diving. Pediatricians also reported cases of cardiac arrest or respiratory failure.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I can't assume good faith. 'Cause that is still a big fucking lie. One that came right after this one:

81c0rbB1hYL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg


Suddenly, Moeritherium wasn't a semiaquatic ancestor to extant elephants either. After Morgan mentioned that one too.

This is a decades long concerted character assassination of an irritating peasant that is not allowed to be right. Straight up Trump methods. Let women tear up their vagina needlessly during childbirth, 'cause Morgan talked about water births too. Same lies.

You are helping these evil fucking lowlives piss on their own giant. You should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. It was a lie then and still is. Only because they were wrong and she was right.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This is your big compelling argument??

Good lord. You're acting more like a kid with a picture book, not someone who has any research to offer.
Click to expand...

Would you pay millions for your own patch of semi-arid savannah, or your own tropical island? Where do you go on your honeymoon, if the pair of you can at all afford it?
 
Last edited:
You can only reject Elaine Morgan by denying what she actually proposed. That's why it won't go away. Your lies ain't working. It doesn't matter that you don't even know you're lying and helping to piss on the grave of a truly great mind of the 20th century, because she spake out of the wrong caste without the sanctioned paper trail.

Try those prophetic words.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
You can only reject Elaine Morgan by denying what she actually proposed. That's why it won't go away. Your lies ain't working. It doesn't matter that you don't even know you're lying and helping to piss on the grave of a truly great mind of the 20th century, because she spake out of the wrong caste without the sanctioned paper trail.

Try those prophetic words.
Click to expand...
Heh heh :biggrin:
 
In an astonishing example of synchronicity, this concept just breezed across my vision.

The Danger of the Simple Story.
The risk of the single story, the one perspective, is that it can lead us to default assumptions, conclusions and decisions that may be incomplete, and may lead to misunderstanding. Operating from the context of a single story can prevent us from a more complex, nuanced view of a situation.
https://amizade.org/danger-of-a-sin...eates stereotypes,the danger of single story.

This fallacy also goes under the guise of Mother Goose Syndrome. OP has read a book and - in the vacuum of a broader education and experience - has become so convinced of the plausible narrative it proposes he can neither see any other narrative objectively, nor cares to.



I had this experience when told a story about JFK's assassination. The story made a lot of plausible implications about whether or not Kennedy was actually dead, and where he was hiding. But it was the first and only narrative I had heard, and - at least for a short while - I had nothing to counter it with. It wasn't until I heard both sides that the conspiracy fell apart.

Also, I was twelve.
 
DaveC426913 said:
In an astonishing example of synchronicity, this concept just breezed across my vision.

The Danger of the Simple Story.
The risk of the single story, the one perspective, is that it can lead us to default assumptions, conclusions and decisions that may be incomplete, and may lead to misunderstanding. Operating from the context of a single story can prevent us from a more complex, nuanced view of a situation.
https://amizade.org/danger-of-a-sin...eates stereotypes,the danger of single story.

This fallacy also goes under the guise of Mother Goose Syndrome. OP has read a book and - in the vacuum of a broader education and experience - has become so convinced of the plausible narrative it proposes he can neither see any other narrative objectively, nor cares to.



I had this experience when told a story about JFK's assassination. The story made a lot of plausible implications about whether or not Kennedy was actually dead, and where he was hiding. But it was the first and only narrative I had heard, and - at least for a short while - I had nothing to counter it with. It wasn't until I heard both sides that the conspiracy fell apart.

Also, I was twelve.
Click to expand...
The kicker is the last line.:biggrin:
 
DaveC426913 said:
The Danger of the Simple Story.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, this splash-splash shit is too simple a story. Unless you label it an umbrella hypothesis. Whenever someone mentions that any such simplicity would actually par with Ockham's Razor, then you suddenly want it to be too complicated for reality. While still babbling about the simplicity of the savannah as the cradle of man, which Phillip Tobias declared dead in 1995 based on the bones that fossilizes more often in anaerobic aquatic silt. The only simple story allowed here is yours. And the only complicated one allowed is yours. 'Cause you're accustomed to that dogma and you really liked The Flintstones on TV as a child, and any challenge to status quo makes you cry, we already know everything.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
Oh yeah, this splash-splash shit is too simple a story.
Click to expand...
The point is not about the story being simple; the point is that you have only one perspective. You haven't studied the larger picture with alternate hypotheses*, so you only know and care about the one you have read about.

* we know this because of your naive pseudo-challenges to them, here in-thread.

CEngelbrecht said:
The only simple story allowed here is yours.
Click to expand...
No one is disallowing you to express your ideas.
Stop playing the victim. You are here, and you are expressing your fanboy love for a book you read, and no one is stopping you.

What we are doing is easily dismantling the shoddy logic you offer. "Which would you prefer: this stinky, lifeless savannah, or this paradisical coastline?" Do you really think this is how educated people debate hypotheses?
"Which would you prefer?" - Wishful thinking fallacy
"Can you chase down a sled dog?" - Red herring fallacy
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top