In article <1991Nov18.195325.13592 at cco.caltech.edu>, morphy at cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
[insults, authoritarian arguments, nazi-baiting, and other non-substantive
and non-productive forms of discourse deleted]
>> Let's face it, Larry. Inside of you there's a nigger, dying to get out.
Jones, you need to do your homework. Most of the people who write in this
newsgroup are trained scientists in biology and related fields. Some of us
are biology hobbyists, rather than professionals. Before you posted, we were
trying to have a serious and rigorous discussion about whether a conclusion
X is a logic consequence of a set of data A,B,C,D.
Although you are correct in your assumption that paleoanthropological theories
have been influenced by questionable human motives in the past, this is not
a discussion about motives. Presumably, if the out-of-Africa hypothesis is
the result of people's biases rather than being a firm scientific conclusion,
we will be able to find that out. Similar, if the out-of-Eurasia hypothesis
is not supported by the data, we will discover it. Possibly, we will find
that neither hypothesis is clearly supported. In any case, we are not
interested in badly-motivated assessments of other people's motives. We are
not debating sociology. A question has been raised on a scientific basis and
we are trying to answer it on a scientific basis.
Your assessment of Larry's motives was rude and out of place, not to mention
incorrect. Larry is trying to be rigorous, and he detects some fuzzy science
in the out-of-Africa hypothesis. I detect the same fuzziness, and if you care
to read the postings on the out-of-africa hypothesis of the past few days, you
will find that we are making substantive scientific arguments. YOU were the
first person to bring the n-word into this forum.
I would never want to discourage you from participating, but please keep an
open mind and try to argue on a scientific level, rather than making so many
_ad hominem_ arguments.
Arlin at ac.dal.ca