As “evidence” to support your theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. When you spend a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In university, I cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!

Can you please explain to me where that came from?

I prefer Nama and Bushman.

Powerful introduction.

MUCH TO LEARN FROM HIM.

I CERTAINLY DID THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT I’VE BEEN ON THIS BLOG.

FARK…sorry CAPS!!! :LOL:

Take a look at my website antiquityofman.com . If you go to the About tab and scroll down to the references section, and follow the link to my 2002 book The Antiquity of Man (which needed a better proof-reader and of course has much content which is now dated) which outlines what science & archaeology are and what defines pseudoscience.
There are also many articles and references throughout the site as well as links to the other main archaeology websites.

If you are looking to buy any books:
Martin Hall’s Archaeology Africa
Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn’s Archaeology theory, method and practice
Hiliary & Janette Deacon’s book on the archaeology of South Africa written in very clear, easy language.
All three are available from Exclusive Books

There are more comprehensive books out there.

My e-mail is on my website. Drop me a line if you wish. I can point you to organisations which do lectures etc for the public.

You know you’re setting yourself up? Some of Skop’s adversaries will no doubt start to doubt how bright YOU are.

@Heavens Game-395: Yawn. Ignorant as usual.

I don’t know which would be more concerning.

Come now Charo.It is obviously not a direct quote from the minister’s letter.

Looks like the journalist’s version of what he said afa I can gather.

A gift to “Social Scientist” from an adherent of a more rigorous and indeed more scientific discipline… clearly

i hope “formerly” is the journalist’s version and not as spelt in the actual letter?

Knowledge is about constantly questioning what is around you and never being satisfied with the answer. It involves physical data as well as theoretical constructs, traditions, implicit and explicit ideologies of what constitutes the world, , social practices, habitus and praxis. It also crucially includes philosophical works by Bourdieu (who did a lot of anthropology) and all the other people you are found of mentioning who were philosophers, etc.

If you ever have the time, take one of the first year philosophy and anthropology modules offered at UCT. You’d find it very enlightening, intellectually stimulating and you’ll begin to see how the dichotomy you presume to exist doesn’t amongst us Social Scientists.

In a written letter to Saru, Mbalula advised that the only way for Mujati to play for the Boks is if the correct process is pursued.

The Ministry said Mujati should be formerly naturalised and carry a national passport as all sportspeople representing a national team are required to do by law.” (EWN)

Hope this will be the end of it. If he does not want to become a SA citizen, that’s that.

No more calls for Mujati to be selected, please.