Don Emmert\/AFP\/Getty Images <\/p>\n
Don Emmert\/AFP\/Getty Images <\/p>\n
\"Without original research or new data, Dominguez-Rodrigo attempts to resurrect 'the spirit of the old savanna hypothesis' via word games and revisionist history ... This attempted resurrection of an obsolete mind-set will stand as a monument to futility. paleoanthropologist Tim White, in response to prehistorian M. Dominguez-Rodrigo's article on the savanna hypothesis of human evolution, in the February 2014 Current Anthropology. <\/p>\n
\"By denying [the] evidence [for the savanna hypothesis], White exemplifies perfectly Kuhn's idea that when a paradigm is assaulted, supporters of the old guard remain intentionally blind to the mounting evidence or selectively utilize data in order to resist change.\" <\/p>\n
Dominguez-Rodrigo's reply to White's critique. <\/p>\n
In a word, wow. <\/p>\n
By the standards of discussion these days on blogs and discussion boards, this exchange may seem relatively mild. But it's acidic stuff for a peer-reviewed science article, even in the contested arena of human-evolution research. When I read Dominguez-Rodrigo's article and White's reply last week, I wondered, is this sort of exchange good for science? <\/p>\n
I find journals like Current Anthropology and Behavioral and Brain Sciences both fun and informative because they publish, at the conclusion of their main articles, a set of response commentaries by experts on the topic. The immediate payoff of reading these multiple perspectives is an extra level of engagement and critical thinking on my part. I love it too when these exchanges get a little heated. Vigorous debate is a vital avenue toward deeper understanding of the issues, and may spur new hypothesis-testing. <\/p>\n
But should there be some boundaries? Should we strive for the high road in terms of civility in peer-reviewed publications? <\/p>\n
I say \"yes\" to both questions. To me, the printed Dominguez-Rodrigo and White exchange doesn't do science any favors. (The full exchange is much longer than the quotes that I selected from the article.) <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here: Don Emmert\/AFP\/Getty Images Don Emmert\/AFP\/Getty Images \"Without original research or new data, Dominguez-Rodrigo attempts to resurrect 'the spirit of the old savanna hypothesis' via word games and revisionist history ... This attempted resurrection of an obsolete mind-set will stand as a monument to futility Continue reading
\nDid Humans Evolve On The Savanna? The Debate Heats Up<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"