John H Langdon, Journal Of Human Evolution discussed on Stuff To Blow Your Mind
Also, I was like, well, let's see I bet there's video of guerrillas wading through water on the internet. I looked it up. No. I mean, there are lots of videos of guerrillas waiting in the water and most of the time they're doing it on four legs. I mean, they're. Few instances where they'd rear up onto legs. So this doesn't totally disprove the hypothesis. But it really kind of undermines this plank of it. Well, I'm gonna make sense because if you're going into the water, there's a good chance, you you want to use your hands to feel for things and granted primates don't have exactly the same hand foot scenario is humans, but you probably going in there you want to feel the repeal round for the rocks. You wanna feel around for something that you're scavenging for right? Yeah. Exactly. And so definitely guerrillas will walk on four legs in the water. I've seen it. But I guess we have to come back to this question of like, obviously, we can't holy judge. I mean, it's it's possible that something like the aquatic ape hypothesis has some grain of truth to it. But if the biologists and paleoanthropologists are correct that this hypothesis is wrong. It's not not parsimonious. There's no reason to resort to it. Why is it so Taneja like we have had lots of people write to us and say do the aquatic ape theory. You know, we we want to hear about it. And it's not that. I don't think it's interesting to talk about. But it's it's not really taken seriously by experts in the field. So why is it so captivating in the public imagination? Why think part of the answer is our entire first episode? What are we talked about our mythological and fictional obsession with the idea of of humans that live in the water humans that live the waves? There is a there is a deep cultural attraction to that idea, and it kinda bleeds over into aquatic ape theory. Sometimes I mean, even even in cases, when it's you know, it's not somebody saying, hey, I think mermaids real and here's some science to back it up, right? Yeah. It's it's kind of a sticky hypothesis since one of those things that like I said, you know, I want to be fair to it. I I don't think it's like lunatic fringe, I I don't think it is ancient aliens. Right. But I don't think there's a good reason to resort to it. But it's one of those things just so interesting to the mind, it's so fun to. Picture. And so fun to entertain that it sort of like overrides our sense of disinterest in other things that seem not necessary to believe in right? There's actually a paper from nineteen ninety seven in the journal of human evolution by John H Langdon called umbrella hypotheses parsimony in human evolution a critique of the aquatic ape hypothesis in Langdon talks about this idea of these umbrella hypotheses, which he says are quote aesthetically appealing because they appear to be parsimonious. So they're internally consistent and by offering this one umbrella hypothesis that explains a range of things, and they appear to explain a whole lot as we were talking about earlier without making you without requiring you to assume a whole lot, but they actually are requiring you to assume more than they appear to and so in trying to explain why these types of ideas, stay popular with the public. He says quote. One reason for this is that simple answers, however, wrong or easier to communicate and are more readily accepted than the more sound, but more complex solutions..