Anthropology was my first major in college back in the stone age.
I remember reading the first article about Johansen's discovery of Lucy, and I watched with amazement as the incomplete skeleton took her place in the hominid evolutionary scheme.
That's when I changed majors. What happened to the testing?
Why do we allow a 2-dimensional representation of life color our judgments of new discoveries? (By "color" I mean to say the theory prejudices our findings.)
Is this because scientists are unable or unwilling to conduct new tests?
If all scientists agree that evolution is a reliable explanation of life, and if during peer review a new discovery caters to the theory, has the discovery ACTUALLY been peer reviewed by an unbiased, neutral body?
2007-03-11 08:17:11 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
5 answers so far, and not a single one has addressed the importance of neutrality.
In fact, Mr. Zebra thinks that an anthropological study will be reviewed by geneticists, ecologists, and maybe even geologists!
Again, a response of faith, not reason.
(It was only 500 years ago, Mr. Zebra, that all the most credentialed scholars in the world thought that the earth was flat! What happened during that peer review when a new spherical idea was presented? Should we have relied on the obvious wisdom of the panel, the belief in "reality", or should we have reviewed the evidence?)
2007-03-11 08:31:00 · update #1
A PEER review is done by one's PEERS.
I think you are actually asking if the discovery has simply been reviewed by an unbiased, neutral body. If that is what you want, precisely how or by whom would this "unbiased, neutral" body be chosen? LOL! If it is chosen, it isn't neutral.
Now, li'l pup, move out of the way and let the big dogs eat.
2007-03-11 08:35:25 · answer #1 · answered by orderly logic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your account would be telling if Lucy still held that place. The fact she does not indicates review and testing. And virtually nobody of significant education 500 years ago believed the Earth was flat. That's a discounted myth based on a fictional account of Columbus written by Washington Irving. Pythagoras gave a simple account of why the Earth must be a sphere based on the shadow it cast on the Moon during an eclipse, and one of Aristotle's students calculated the circumference of the earth within about 80 miles. Paradigm decides interpretation, neutrality in any endeavor is impossible.
2007-03-11 15:45:20 · answer #2 · answered by neil s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not true that scientists believed the world was flat 500 years ago.
The greeks knew that the world was round back in the day. And also had a pretty good idea of how big it was.
2007-03-11 15:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by theFo0t 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
40 percent of Lucy had been found, more than enough to classify her as a hominid. Hominidae encompasses all species originating after the human/African ape ancestral split, leading to and including all species of Australopithecus and Homo. While these species differ in many ways, hominids share a suite of characteristics which define them as a group. You changed majors for that reason? They did testing. You might know that if you had stuck with your major...
2007-03-11 15:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has been many years since the discovery of Lucy. It has been subjected to peer review. Anthropologist of all persuasions have looked at the evidence and dissenters have been heard and the majority opinion is still that Lucy belongs in the human lineage.
2007-03-11 15:26:34 · answer #5 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Damn sparky, you just won't quit right?
So your argument is that all the scientists in a variety of disciplines across the globe who have worked on the theory for some near-150 years are simply mistaken, and bipolar sky daddy did it all?
2007-03-11 15:21:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
So you focus on one instance-highlight an alleged problem with it and use it as a stick to beat all biologists and scientists with? You really are a truly bizzare individual. Who do you think you're kidding with your pseudo scientific bullsh!t?
2007-03-11 15:21:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Thats the beauty of science, you can prove, or disprove anything.
Religion on the other hand, thats just wild posturing.
we just are, doesnt really matter in the end.
2007-03-11 15:22:08 · answer #8 · answered by Geisha VT poser 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
*sigh* Yes, those darned scientists... they recognize reality and now they just can't get their heads out of it! Let's scold them!
Scold, scold!
2007-03-11 15:20:41 · answer #9 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
yes it has.
2007-03-11 15:20:38 · answer #10 · answered by funaholic 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋