• Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    I’m posting here to complain about an abuse-of-privilege by “Baden”, when he, without justification, removed a thread from the Science category.
    .
    I posted a thread, to the Science category, about Dr. Eugene McCarthy’s theory of a pig-chimpanzee hybridization origin for the human species.
    .
    A few things that I should first emphasize about McCarthy and his theory, because they’re relevant to Baden’s removal of the thread, and to my complaint about that removal:
    .
    1. McCarthy is a PhD geneticist, specializing in hybridization. He’s an established top hybridization-geneticist and has taught university-courses in those areas.
    .
    2. McCarthy doesn’t claim that his pig-ancestry theory is true. But he provides facts that are otherwise difficult to explain. He provides a long list of anatomical ways in which humans differ from all of the other primates (and in which all of the other primates don’t differ from eachoter). …anatomical attributes all of which are shared by humans and pigs.
    .
    Those many differences between humans and all of the other primates--where all of the primates other than humans are one anatomical way, but humans differ from all the other primates—have long puzzled scientists.
    -------------------
    For those two reasons, McCarthy’s pig-theory, and that thread about it, didn’t violate scientific standards, and wasn’t unqualified for the Science category.
    .
    So what was Baden’s justification for the removal? Well, let’s listen to him:
    .
    “Charitably assuming this is a joke and moving to the lounge.”
    .
    “The idea is so ridiculous and so wrong in so many ways, and insultingly wrong to anyone with any background or understanding of the field, it's almost not worth explaining to anyone who takes it seriously.”
    .
    Really? McCarthy’s background and credentials in the field of hybridization-genetics are incomparably better than those of Baden.
    .
    “You don't need a PhD in genetics to know how silly this idea is.”
    .
    “And McCarthy's counterweight to claiming something that is scientifically impossible…”
    .
    So, his removal-justification consists of:
    .
    “Ridiculous”, “Silly”, “Scientifically-Impossible”
    .
    …because Baden says so. We get that Baden disagrees with Dr. McCarthy, a genetics PhD and established hybridization authority.
    .
    Distant hybridizations are increasingly rare, with increasing distantness. But McCarthy points out that it just isn’t known what amount of distantness makes a fertile hybrid offspring entirely impossible.
    .
    …but evidently Baden knows better Dr. McCarthy, a genetics PhD and established authority on hybridization.
    .
    As I said, McCarthy doesn’t claim that his theory is true, but he merely presents evidence. …evidence that he’s a lot better-qualified to evaluate than Baden is.
    Additionally, Baden fixated on old reports that McCarthy published at his website. For example:
    .
    “He specifically uses the reports (which obviously he didn't write—he wasn't alive) as evidence for the notion that chickens and humans interbred, and he is endorsing that notion”
    .
    No, actually McCarthy explicitly disclaimed any such endorsement of the reports’ accuracy or of the notion of chicken-human hybridization.
    .
    And I mention this, lest it be used as thread-removal-justification:
    .
    Baden justified his disagreement by quoting strongly-worded criticism from a McCarthy-critic who, compared to Dr. McCarthy, is uncredentialed in hybridization-genetics.
    .
    But, more relevantly, the thread and its OP made no mention of chickens, but only spoke of McCarthy’s pig-ancestry theory and his evidence for it. Only Baden spoke of chicken-human hybridizations in that thread.
    .
    A quote from the forum-guidelines:
    .
    “In discussions, a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else, and shouldn't, under normal circumstances*, moderate their interlocutors.”
    .
    Baden justified his removal of that thread from the Science-category only by his unsupported personal opinion that McCarthy’s suggestion is “scientifically-impossible”, “ridiculous” and “silly”. The removal was based Baden’s unsupported personal opinion—opinion in disagreement with a PhD hybridization-geneticist incomparably more qualified and better-credentialed in his field than Baden.
    .
    I suggest, then, that Baden is abusing his privileges as moderator or administrator. It probably isn't fair to Baden (or anyone else) to burden Baden with the responsibility to not abuse the privileges of a moderator or administrator.
    .
    Michael Ossipoff
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Nah, 'tis a bunch of bollocks and is lucky to not have been deleted straight-out.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k


    Is that your expert professional opinion, as a genetics PhD?

    Michael Ossipoff
  • fdrake
    5.9k
    I'm sure the only reason that it was removed from the science category into the lounge was because no pigs were artificially inseminated with chimp semen. It was clear from the presence of snuggling on the list of unique characteristics of humans that pigs and chimps were fucking a whole lot way back in evolutionary time.

    Or alternatively you can look at PZ Myers completely destroying every part of the claim.

    You may as well have linked a flat earth 'research paper', it's in the same league of ridiculousness. But by all means, get a Kickstarter going to artificially inseminate pigs with chimp semen to test it, the author certainly didn't bother.
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    Try a less controversial thread in a science forum.

    What is the evidence of inter-ordinal hybridization in nature. Pose question to relevant forum. Do not mention pig chimp sexual relations. Do not mention McCarthy.
  • S
    11.7k
    I would like to take this opportunity to complain about Michael Ossipoff's idiosyncratic style of formulating posts. It is not of an acceptable grammatical standard. I would've been inclined to delete a post like his opening post. There are too many paragraphs, multiple incorrect usage of full stops, and an incorrect use of the hyphen. It is an eyesore.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Gosh no. Apparently some doctorates think that we are pig-chimp hybrids so they clearly are under-qualified for holding opinions about this kind of thing.
  • unenlightened
    8.8k
    Well I thought it was interesting, and no more fanciful than many a respectable mainstream origin story that has had the official seal of approval from time to time - aquatic ape theory - remember that one?

    But as against that, it's not really philosophy bollocks or gospel.

    to artificially inseminate pigs with chimp semen to test it, the author certainly didn't bother.fdrake

    Wrong way round dude, and rather indicates the care given to this decision.
  • S
    11.7k
    Anyway, is this how pimps are born? :chin:
  • fdrake
    5.9k
    Wrong way round dude, and rather indicates the care given to this decision.unenlightened

    p9hgawzk07e4j6wd.jpeg
  • S
    11.7k
    :rofl:
  • Baden
    15.6k


    In future, your pseudoscience will be instantly deleted. And no apologies will be made for keeping this site clear of it.



    With respect, this is just one of those rare occasions where you happen to be wrong.
  • S
    11.7k
    Try a less controversial thread.

    What is the evidence of inter-ordinal hybridization in nature. Do not mention pig chimp sexual relations. Do not mention McCarthy.
    Nils Loc

    And whatever you do, don't mention anything about McCarthy engaging in pig chimp sexual relations. That's a private matter between McCarthy and his animal lovers.
  • unenlightened
    8.8k
    With respect, I am wrong more often than you think. But when I play devil's advocate and all I get is ridicule and argument from authority, I smile quietly and shake my head a little.
  • fdrake
    5.9k


    To be fair, the link to the biology blog I gave demonstrates extremely thoroughly why the argument in the paper is flawed and the conclusions would be implausible-bordering-on-impossible even with a valid argument.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    I'm sure the only reason that it was removed from the science category into the lounge was because no pigs were artificially inseminated with chimp semen.fdrake

    McCarthy answered that argument. No one claimed that every such inseminization would result in a pregnancy, much less a survivable and fertile offspring. On the contrary, if it can happen,, it's most extremely rare. The experiment you propose would require many, many thousands of artificial inseminizations. ...and tremendous expense. Feel free to offer to finance it if you want it done.

    But such experimentation would be objectionable on humane grounds.

    Or alternatively you can look at PZ Myers completely destroying every part of the claim.

    Myers' "demolishing" consisted of name-calling, angry-noises, and unsupported personal-opinion.

    In comparison to McCarthy, Myers is uncredentialed in hybridization-genetics.

    The crux of the criticism of McCarthy's suggestion is the assumption that it's entirely impossible for a cross-order hybrid to ever be survivable and fertile. That's an assumption and a belief, but it isn't an established-fact. As I said, McCarthy pointed out that (understandably) it isn't known how distant a hybridization could, very very rarelly, result in a survivable and fertile offspring.

    Anyone pretending to know that is displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    You may as well have linked a flat earth 'research paper', it's in the same league of ridiculousness.

    Is that your expert professional opinion as a genetics PhD?

    But by all means, get a Kickstarter going to artificially inseminate pigs with chimp semen to test it, the author certainly didn't bother.

    See above. McCarthy probably didn't have the many millions of dollars that such a long project would require. As I said, the experiment would be objectionable on humane grounds.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • S
    11.7k
    Is that your expert professional opinion as a genetics PhD?Michael Ossipoff

    Why did you post this on a philosophy forum if you were looking for expert professional opinions from those with a genetics PhD?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    It's problematic to have moderators make moderation judgments about content--that is, the philosophical, scientific, etc. merit of anything--even if there's reason to believe that they're qualified to do so.

    It's more problematic when there's no good reason to believe that they're qualified to do so.

    Let the participants sort out for themselves whether they feel anything has merit. The moderators should be primarily getting rid of spam a la advertising, things like people flooding the board with threads, etc.
  • fdrake
    5.9k
    Myers' "demolishing" consisted of name-calling, angry-noises, and unsupported personal-opinion.Michael Ossipoff

    And refuting the morphological argument in the paper, and an analysis on chromosomal compatibility which strongly suggests that the pairing couldn't bring offspring at all, never mind fertile offspring.

    The reason Myers got to be so insulting is because he thoroughly refuted the claims, the substance of the argument isn't insults. Insults are the irresistible spice on top for dealing with something so stupid.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    What is the evidence of inter-ordinal hybridization in nature. Do not mention pig chimp sexual relations.Nils Loc

    You ask for evidence, and then ask that I not mention it :D

    No one denies that survivable fertile offspring from inter-order hybridization is, if possible at all, very, very improbable and rare.

    So, sorry there aren't more instances of evidence.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    No one denies that survivable fertile offspring from inter-order hybridization is, if possible at all, very, very improbable and rare.

    So, sorry there aren't more instances of evidence.
    Michael Ossipoff

    Therefore the theory being right is highly improbable.
  • fdrake
    5.9k
    No one denies that survivable fertile offspring from inter-order hybridization is, if possible at all, very, very improbable and rare.Michael Ossipoff

    Which is funny because people have babies a lot.

    Let it go, you read too much into a plausible- sounding-at-first-glance-paper and now you're annoyed with moderators for declaring that a literal discussion about 'pig fucks a chimp and it makes a human' is pseudoscience. You can still talk about it with anyone who cares in the Lounge.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    Therefore the theory being right is highly improbable.Nils Loc

    The obvious rarity (and evident nonexistence) of survivable, fertile inter-order hybrids gives it a very, very low a priori probability.

    McCarthy merely cites facts that are otherwise difficult to explain.

    How much that evidence changes someone's subjectively-perceived probability of there being even the remote possibility of successful inter-order hybridization is just that....an individual subjective matter.

    McCarthy's long list of humans' anatomical differences from all the primates--attributes shared by humans and pigs--is worth mentioning, and makes McCarthy's theory worth mentioning.

    ...whatever your subjective perception of the probability of the theory being true.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Brilliant idea for everyone--including moderators, to can the thread but nevertheless start debating about it in this thread instead, as if it's worthwhile to spend time on. lol
  • unenlightened
    8.8k
    It's more problematic when there's no good reason to believe that they're qualified to do so.Terrapin Station

    If God was in charge, we could all rest easy in our armchairs, but alas moderators always have to make judgements they are not qualified for, and so we have feedback for their education and improvement.

    I'll duck out now rather than repeat the non-arguments already deleted in the original. The philosophical interest is more in the basis of the moderating decision than the hypothesis itself. I'll just mention on the way out that comparisons with flat Earth are a bit weak. We have the photos of Earth, but only cartoons of the origin of humanity. Anyone remember the cartoon ridicule of Darwin?
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    Which is funny because people have babies a lot.fdrake

    Yes, and most of their babies have two parents of the same species, accounting for the better fertility-rate.

    But, incidentally, human fertility is inexplicably low, compared to other primates, and other animals in general.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If God was in charge, we could all rest easy in our armchairs, but alas moderators always have to make judgements they are not qualified for, and so we have feedback for their education and improvement.unenlightened

    How about they just don't make (philosophical, scientific, etc.) content decisions? There's no need for that, especially because the board is relatively slow as it is.
  • fdrake
    5.9k


    Our bar's pretty low, actually. If you've ever been in a place without any content standards, you'll see the wisdom of having some. The moderator decision here wasn't even to delete the thread, it was to move it to the Lounge. Everyone who wants to talk about it still can, just we won't have anything about this ridiculous crap on the front page.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    And refuting the morphological argument in the paper, and an analysis on chromosomal compatibility which strongly suggests that the pairing couldn't bring offspring at all, never mind fertile offspring.

    The reason Myers got to be so insulting is because he thoroughly refuted the claims
    fdrake

    As I said, compared to McCarthy, Myers is uncredentialed in hybridization-genetics.

    ...casting doubt on his qualification to "refute" him.

    Michael Ossipoff
  • T Clark
    13k
    It's problematic to have moderators make moderation judgments about content--that is, the philosophical, scientific, etc. merit of anything--even if there's reason to believe that they're qualified to do so.

    It's more problematic when there's no good reason to believe that they're qualified to do so.

    Let the participants sort out for themselves whether they feel anything has merit. The moderators should be primarily getting rid of spam a la advertising, things like people flooding the board with threads, etc.
    Terrapin Station

    Seems like you're saying it is inappropriate to let moderators moderate. Silly. The guys who put this forum together decided that it is necessary to keep it from turning into a swamp of nasty, half-baked sludge. That's an attitude I endorse, even if I sometimes don't agree with particular choices. So what do we have - a mostly civil, mostly credible, mostly well written, mostly intelligible, mostly fun, and mostly philosophical philosophy forum. That's a really good, and pretty rare, thing.

    Without getting into the specific arguments about chimps and pigs again, the moderators were clearly right in deciding that the material under discussion is pseudo-science. They didn't delete it, they only moved it to a more appropriate location.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.