Posted: Jan 10, 2019 9:54 am
by Jayjay4547
Cito di Pense wrote:

Aww, you're not being treated with kid gloves. You've been broadcasting the same tired wibble for years, now, slathered in complaints about ideology and being treated rudely.


Actually Cito, I’ve developed a high tolerance to being treated rudely, I just won’t put up with being told I’m lying. And I’m not exactly complaining about ideology; my whole aim is to reveal the role of ideology In origin narratives, especially of human beings.


Cito di Pense wrote: Surely you understand that, if you had a point to make, you'd have made it already, including your contention that you're not being understood, or whatever it was, last time.


When you say “whatever it was, last time” you advertise that you couldn’t be bothered to go back and identify something concrete. I’m trying to present an argument in the context of an ideological blizzard that has been going on for many decades and to an audience who deny that they even share an ideology, although you imagine you are gathered in a “lifeboat”. It’s a good point that I should have been able to make my point already, but it’s an exploration and I feel the blizzard in my head as well as in your text. I would like to drop in two new things.


In discussing this Smithsonian Mag article on the human skin https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 1xo4mme.99 I criticized some of those involved: science writer Jason Daley for building his story on basic science research that had nothing to do with the speculations about the human skin he went on to detail. Mark Pagel for proposing that our hairless skin is to combat lice, and Mark Changizi who proposed that primate colour vision is to help in signalling emotional and health status. Also reader Ben Hotchkiss proposed it was to avoid getting singed by fire. I cited two others without criticism: reader Virginia Harlow pointed out racial prejudice and dermatology professor Sarah Millar author of the basic research. So the good guys were female. But then it occurred to me, ALL the female scientists and academics I have cited here, are or were good guys: Lynn Margulis, Elizabeth Vrba, Mary Midgley, Joan Roughgarden, Dorothy Cheney (died last year, sadly), Anne Engh. I’d like to add Christine Garwood (“Flat Earth”) and Linda Birke (‘Feminism, Animals and Science”). There is a pattern: women do good science and men tend to suffer cross-talk from ideology. The ideology pattern even extends to this forum where males predominate. OK I’m also male but I’m not so much an alpha.

I don’t know yet where to take that, also came across this YouTube of a “Brave monkey fights snake”

One thing that shows is the incredible excellence of a primate, at biting with speed and agility. But please do not try this at home, although you are also a primate and doubtless excellent in some other way.