<<This statement [Shreeve's] is an historical introduction to a discussion of
Gargett's article. Shreeve was clearly and simply talking about what happened
historically and was NOT expressing his beliefs here.>>
No, it was part of a summary that included, e.g., "new evidence" introduced in
Rome about Monte Circeo. It references Stringer as well. Shreeve refers to
"all this Neandertal-bashing" bolstering Stringer's theory. Clearly, this is
OTHER evidence, not just Stringer's or Gargett's. Only then does he go on to
discuss Gargett.
"I think the Neanderthals had natural spirits like those of modern peoples who
also live tight against nature. But where the modern's gosds might inhabit
the eland, the buffalo, or the blade of grass, the Neandertals' spirit was the
animal or the grass blade, the thing and its sould perceived as a single vital
force with no need to distinguish them with separate names." Neanderthal
Enigma,p. 341
Sounds like a religion to me and sounds like a religion to me and sounds like
Shreeve disagrees with what you say he believes.>>
Nope. As you have conceded before, Shreeve's opinion is that Neanderthal's had
a "different sort of self and a different kind of consciousness." His opinion
sounds vaguely like Leakey's: Neandertal had a consciousness, but not of the
same luminosity as modern human beings. I have no problem with that. But it is
not bilblical sprituality, nor shaman-spirituality.
<<You're straining to make weak data fit your theory, IMO.
That is not a philosophy Jim. What is wrong with my philosophy?>>
Well, it may be flawed because it holds to a conclusion and skews contrary
evidence. (BTW, if you want to call this "method," then go ahead).
Here is another part of your method that troubles me. Wherever there is a
large "gap" in your theorizing, you tell us "absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence" (it is not evidence of presence, either, of course). But
you do this with:
1. The lack of tool culture for millions of years ("technological dark age")
2. The lack of artistic culture for millions of years ("just like
mathematics")
3. The lack of transitional fossils ("It is unreasonable to expect
fossilization here")
4. The lack of Neandertal cave art ("This was outside art, so it is
unreasonable to expect it to be preserved.")
It is the method that leads to this madness! ;-)
<<Homo erectus made a Venus figurine. This is something qualitatively
different.>>
Then answer my question:
<<You're saying there is a qualitative difference between
outer manifestations of the inner lives of birds and humans.All right. I am
saying there is a qualitative difference between the outer manifestations of
the inner lives of man and Neanderthal. Under your own standard, I win.>>
Why is such a distinction all right for you, and not for me?
Jim