Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pseudoscience template

I recently noticed the removal of this article from the {{Pseudoscience}} template. I checked if this article was described as pseudoscience then noticed the sentence: "Anthropologist John D. Hawks wrote that it is fair to categorize the AAH as pseudoscience", so have reverted it. My revert was then reverted by another editor asking me to check if the article supported it ("Only appropriate to list something here as pseudoscience if this is supported in the relevant article") but also claiming that the article would also need to be in the category to be in the navigation template ("Aquatic ape hypothesis is not within Category:Pseudoscience. I suggest you take up the subject on the article's talk page"). Since I don't care much, I'll leave this note and let others decide. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm so WP:NAVBOX: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." and I note that the editor who removed it (CEngelbrecht2) has a history of trouble in relation to this topic. I would like to understand FreeKnowledgeCreator rationale, since the article does support that it's pseudoscience, inclusion in a category is not necessary to be in a navigation box and we have the WP:PSCI policy. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The article notes the opinions of two critics who consider the Aquatic ape hypothesis pseudoscience. Their opinions are presented as opinions, however; they are not presented as fact. The Aquatic ape hypothesis article does not identify its subject as pseudoscience in the way that many other topics are unambiguously identified as pseudoscience by their articles (such as Intelligent design, for example). I am not really interested in debating the topic; I'm simply noting that for the hypothesis to be identified as pseudoscience in the Pseudoscience template, the article would have to give much more weight to the view that it is pseudo-scientific. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right that it's more ambiguous, thanks for the comment. Although I remembered a bit about the main claims, this piqued my interest to reread the article, then I've been looking for updated information and sources tonight. Unsurprisingly, I mostly find non-expert reviews, but also some expert criticism. Anthropology itself has always been a shady field, in this case it's anthropology mostly made by amateurs. It can be credited as inspiring a little research, yet is mostly considered a falsified hypothesis (some keep entertaining it, possibly indulging in pseudoscience, for others it's fantasy, ideology or simply the appreciation of an alternative view to old anthropology) but inferring that the hypothesis itself was pseudoscience may be a little pushed, afterall... —PaleoNeonate – 04:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Placing a page in the category "pseudoscience" does not necessarily mean that the idea is confirmed by everyone to be pseudoscience (how could it?). Rather, it is a category used for when there are documented reliable sources naming the topic as pseudoscientific. I think we have that situation here. Perhaps a consideration should be given as to whether this subject should be added to List of pseudosciences, however. I think it represents a fantastically interesting edge case. It's probably closer to a failed hypothesis that exposed a naked emperor while being naked itself. jps (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

At the same time, you have other reliable sources labeling this topic "stigmatized", arguing that this stigma is a serious hindrance for the reconstruction of the human past.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23272598

If the whole topic is to be labeled pseudoscience, it's a very strange pseudoscientific topic at that. It'd be the only pseudoscientific topic I know of, where what's actually being proposed isn't what's being rejected time and time again, and where Nullius in Verba somehow doesn't apply. With this one topic, students of paleoanthropology are expected not to form their own opinion in the faculties by reading certain banned volumes, while it takes any first year art student to explain to a toddler, why Dan Brown is a nutball. With Elaine Morgan, the kids don't have to know her argumentation, so they can see for themselves why she was so full of it, and they risk their exams by keep asking questions about it (that is a true story).

At best, the topic can only be labeled fringe science. At worst, its treatment by the fraternities the last fifty years would be labeled an scientific scandal of Galilean proportions. Pseudoscientific just doesn't apply and never has.--CEngelbrecht2 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Per the sourcing AAH has been characterized as pseudoscience. And per WP:PSCI, we need to up-front about this so I've mentioned it in the lede (it was already in the body). Also fixed up categories/templates and listed AAH at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

its treatment by the fraternities the last fifty years would be labeled an scientific scandal of Galilean proportions -- please save your personal conspiracy theories intended to make you look oh-so-enlightened while giving you frequent opportunities to look down on those who disagree with "science" an idea you chose just to be controversial for some other site. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the material about it being a pseudoscience could do with expanding if possible.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A recent survey study asked scientists if they agreed with the criticism that AAH is pseudoscience. Many more disagreed than agreed: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.3887. So AAH has indeed been characterized as pseudoscience, but this does not seem to be the majority view. Cricetus (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added Tuomisto et al. mentioned by Cricetus to the lead, which is a very interesting publication that settles the debate whether scientists consider AAH pseudoscience. It's important to let the readers know this (professional but informal) opinion exists, but putting the subject matter into Category:Pseudoscience and Template:Pseudoscience along with other evident crackpots is somehow misleading (unless we divide the lists by "level of crackpotness" but that would be an overkill), especially now we have data showing that scientists, even the expert (paleo)anthropologists, largely disagree. ChakAzul (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lets all lay of the PA's please, it helps no one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Having a level of 'crackpotness' is actually a very good idea. There are no 100% settled matters in science or in any rational debates. AAH is gaining in respectability over the last 30 years and the above quoted research confirms this. So the 'crackpotness' is moving down and well below the line now that merits it as included in the the category 'Pseudoscience'. There is a nice chapter on this item in 'the waterside ape' added with a petition signed by scholars actively involved in the subject: Erika Schagatay, Professor of Animal Physiology, Mid Sweden University, Sweden Peter Rhys-Evans, Consultant Otolaryngologist, the Lister Hospital, London, United Kingdom Kathlyn Stewart, Research Scientist, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada Marc Verhaegen, General Physician and Researcher in Human Evolution, Mechelen, Belgium Mario Vaneechoutte, Professor of Medicine and Bacteriology, University of Ghent, Belgium Naama Goren-Inbar, Professor of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Stephen Munro PhD, Curator at the National Museum of Australia Algis Kuliukas, PhD, Researcher at the University of Western Australia Stephen Cunnane, Professor of Medicine, Sherbrooke University, Canada Tom Brenna, PhD, Professor, Cornell University, United States Michael Crawford, Visiting Professor, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom13. Hansvvz (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Related academic and independent research

I have now included a quotation from De Waal to demonstrate what should be obvious namely that, since the Hardy paper onwards, the wading hypothesis is viewed, and not just by its proponents, as a fundamental component of AAH. Therefore research papers and commentaries pertaining to it are valid content for this article in the section Related academic and independent research. Almanacer (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems incidental and irrelevant, especially in the synthetic puffed-up way you included it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It would help if you could clarify your objections rather than just restating them. The Wrangham paper on bonobo wading is referenced in the bipedalism article so explain why it is suitable there but “seems incidental and irrelevant” in an article with the specific focus on: the “Proposal that humans evolved certain features due to filling a semi-aquatic niche” (edit summary). And what’s the problem with including de Waal referencing “Hardy’s aquatic ape theory, or at least the part that links bipedalism to wading in shallow water” in relation to research on bonobo wading behaviour ? Almanacer (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Because you're taking one incidental mention and padding it with your own fanciful editorial. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been editing on WP long enough to know how to summarise and present material according to WP guidelines. So I take your accusation of editorialising as a lame attempt to avoid presenting any substantial argument demonstrating the irrelevance you claim. So let’s try with the de Waal again for a start :

Primatologists have studied the behaviour of bonobos in the the seasonally flooded habitats of Zaire. Frans de Waal reports of observations of bonobos feeding in water consistent with “Hardy’s aquatic ape theory, or at least the part that links bipedalism to wading in shallow water.”

Any issues with this? Almanacer (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

"not considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience"

Is not considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience really what was meant? It would seem to be opposite the meaning of the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a particularly unfortunate mistake, as discussed at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

yeah that was on me. Missed three letters. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)