Respect versus contempt for evidence: Reply to Hunt and Lipo

Abstract

Contrary to the claim by Hunt and Lipo (2007), our disagreements with them do not constitute a simplistic and patronizing opposition of evidence and faith. This is a ridiculous claim. It's more a question of having faith in the available evidence, deciding what is vital and what incidental, and not being selective about it - such as ignoring the testimony of Forster, Geiseler and others (see Section 7). To a large extent, Hunt and Lipo seem to have set up some false oppositions to give themselve something to attack. And it is outrageous for them to claim that we do not have open minds, and that we are "unaware of both the historic impacts on Rapa Nui as well as the significant literature on the biological impacts Europeans wrought in the Americas and the Pacific".