<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Ardi Reveals About the Syntax of Scientific Findings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://christophercloos.com/2009/10/02/syntax-of-scientific-findings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://christophercloos.com/2009/10/02/syntax-of-scientific-findings/</link>
	<description>My philosophy website and blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:41:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Cloos</title>
		<link>http://christophercloos.com/2009/10/02/syntax-of-scientific-findings/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher Cloos]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://christophercloos.com/?p=417#comment-98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Though I did not mention this in the original post, another dimension of interpretation involves mainstream media. What scientists report tentatively the mainstream media interprets even further. This leads to inferences that are not properly qualified. The result is that people take what they read from mainstream media outlets as fact. In the Ardi case the conclusions are super-hedged by the scientists and the implications of the findings tentatively asserted. Mainstream outlets infer from these hedged inferences and drop the important probabilistic qualifications. The result is that the mainstream media inferences appear highly probable or likely to be scientific fact. As an example of mainstream media interpretation of Ardi, the quote below was pulled from a commentary in Forbes magazine by Lionel Tiger. The last paragraph is a salient expression of my point.

&quot;This moral coding of behavior has already begun, if tentatively and with much throat clearing. For example, there is useful attention paid to the reduction in the size of upper teeth--the sharp fang-like instruments for aggression and defense. A possible explanation given for this is that teeth in Ardi&#039;s clan were no longer as important for male-male combat as in other fossilized and contemporary primates. And going on from there, it is suggested that Ardipithecus was less socially aggressive than the living chimpanzees we thought were our closest relatives, and other African apes. In addition, the canine teeth of males and females are relatively similar in size--in contrast to those of African apes, among whom male teeth are larger--and this suggested to the team of researchers that Ardi lived in a social system with less male-male competition than in other species. 

Not only does this imply that Ardi males were morally more acceptable to contemporary values than other species, but it is suggested that an important possible outcome of the greater male-male conviviality could well have been greater male emphasis on their work as fathers.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though I did not mention this in the original post, another dimension of interpretation involves mainstream media. What scientists report tentatively the mainstream media interprets even further. This leads to inferences that are not properly qualified. The result is that people take what they read from mainstream media outlets as fact. In the Ardi case the conclusions are super-hedged by the scientists and the implications of the findings tentatively asserted. Mainstream outlets infer from these hedged inferences and drop the important probabilistic qualifications. The result is that the mainstream media inferences appear highly probable or likely to be scientific fact. As an example of mainstream media interpretation of Ardi, the quote below was pulled from a commentary in Forbes magazine by Lionel Tiger. The last paragraph is a salient expression of my point.</p>
<p>&#8220;This moral coding of behavior has already begun, if tentatively and with much throat clearing. For example, there is useful attention paid to the reduction in the size of upper teeth&#8211;the sharp fang-like instruments for aggression and defense. A possible explanation given for this is that teeth in Ardi&#8217;s clan were no longer as important for male-male combat as in other fossilized and contemporary primates. And going on from there, it is suggested that Ardipithecus was less socially aggressive than the living chimpanzees we thought were our closest relatives, and other African apes. In addition, the canine teeth of males and females are relatively similar in size&#8211;in contrast to those of African apes, among whom male teeth are larger&#8211;and this suggested to the team of researchers that Ardi lived in a social system with less male-male competition than in other species. </p>
<p>Not only does this imply that Ardi males were morally more acceptable to contemporary values than other species, but it is suggested that an important possible outcome of the greater male-male conviviality could well have been greater male emphasis on their work as fathers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

