> Glenn wrote: "And Neanderthals made flutes and whistles.
> To claim that they were merely bipedal mammals as Ross and
> Rana do is simply silly and totally ignores data. When are
> these apologists going to at least tell their supporters
> the anthropological facts?"
John Burgeson commented:
> My guess is that they have gone out on a limb far enough that to even
> acknowledge the existence of such findings would compromise their
> message. I do not think they do this maliciously, however. It is just the
> human condition to closely look at data that supports our position and to
> selectively ignore the rest. It is a condition which is very very hard to
> overcome, for one fools himself so easily.
But even now, isn't there some way RTB could just
back off, or shove it aside if it they are so concerned
about losing face or whatever it is that they seem to
be stuck on. Why can't people just say sometimes,
"I mucked it up" and be done with it? It's not
like it's a sin to get an interpretation messed up.
To put it in somewhat more practical terms. I can't see it
as wrong to stick with a hypothesis I honestly think is true
even though it isn't particularly supported by much evidence.
One has to have a kind of faith in their search as a scientist.
However, sometimes hunches just don't pan out even though I
had confidence they would. Nevertheless, at some point, I should
have to admit (in such circumstances) that it's not working and get
on with it. That might really cost me something, but which is
ultimately better? I guess that really can go on for some time
fooling oneself, but I think it best to learn the lesson from
it and be more careful the next time. What is bad is not
_learning_ from mistakes, not that fact that we making them.
Maybe that is somewhere where RTB is at on this matter.
by Grace we do proceed,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 09:48:16 EST